> how can cryptography experts expound the security of such and such cryptographic primitives involving discrete numbers, exponentiation, ... but be unable to come up with alternative proofs of FLT? ... but be unable to individually formalize existing supposed proof of FLT? ... but be unable to find a more succinct proof of FLT?
I have no idea why you think there's a contradiction in here somewhere.
I have no idea why you think there's a contradiction in here somewhere.