Skip to main content
MathOverflow

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ FLT comes into this via their specification of a specific superpotential $W$ which includes a term $\Phi_4[\Phi_1^p+\Phi_2^p+ (t\Phi_3)^p]$ (p.~3). Is there something in the theory that constrains them to that, or do they simply have the freedom to pick a superpotential that will relate to FLT this way? $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 27, 2013 at 12:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Colin --- more general non-polynomial superpotentials are considered in section 4. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 27, 2013 at 13:11
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ I do not see that Section 4 uses FLT. It looks like in this paper FLT is just a nice source of integer polynomials without rational solutions. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 27, 2013 at 13:34