Prev: "UK maths deterioration; here a UK math poster believes K is not divisible by K nor by 1" UK math insanity
Next: Energy weight of singularity
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 11 Aug 2010 17:33


OwlHoot wrote:
> On Aug 10, 8:30 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
> <plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > Hi John
> >
> > I do not want to argue with you or make you feel bad in any way.
> > But the facts of your post and your followup of coprime, that you
> > are mistaken.
> >
> > You must admit, that in all of your life of doing mathematics, you
> > were never able to do a Infinitude of Twin Primes proof. I am
> > certainly right on that, John.
>
> Yes, that's true. (But nobody else has either.)
>

Sad that you do not have an open mind coupled with the fact that you
cannot
do a Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof, indirect.

For if you could, you would recognize that Twin Primes is instantly
proveable.

The Infinitude of Twin Primes was proven in year 1991, but human
society will take
alot longer to realize that Twin Primes was proven in 1991.

And it is sad observation that we think everyone that is in science,
has a "open mind
and a rational mind". But the truth of the matter is that most people
in science are
narrow minded and full of bias.

> > But the reason you were never able to do a Infinitude of Twin Primes
> > proof, John Ramsden, is because you were never able to do a valid
> > Infinitude of Regular Primes (Euclid style) Indirect Method. I do
> > not mean to be hard on you John, but you mixed up the Indirect with
> > the Direct method.
>
> I may have misunderstood this, but I thought the (or "an")
> Indirect Method for proving an infinitude of primes, or
> for that matter the existence of anything that interests
> you, is to do this without having to construct examples
> explicitly.
>

Why waste time carping. I simply asked you to post your version of
Euclid IP, indirect. I gave mine in shortform and you criticized the
step that
said W+1 is necessarily prime.

Instead of carping, why not just post your version? Is it that you are
incompetent?


> So if you mean something else, or there's something special
> about a Euclid style Indirect Method, then it would be best
> to define that.
>
> There are other methods, such as proving that the series
> of reciprocals of primes 1/2+1/3+1/5+ .. diverges. But
> unfortunately that doesn't work for prime pairs, because
> amazingly a guy called Brun proved that the sum of the
> reciprocals of these converges.
>
> One more point about my previous post. The reason the usual
> proof uses W +/- 1 as numbers divisible only by primes not
> dividing W, rather than V +/- W where V and W are coprime
> and V * W is divisible by all the first k primes is that
> V +/- W may equal -1 or 1. So you can't guarantee any new
> primes divide it!
>

More dribble drabble and skirting the issue. I gave my Indirect
shortform.
You criticized my step-- W+1 is necessarily prime. Thence I asked you
to post your IP, indirect. You fail to do so. Why? Because you are
incompetent
and can only complain about mine.

>
> Cheers
>
> John Ramsden

Poor poor showing John Ramsden, perhaps you should look into taking up
a math
journal editors post like that of Knight and Davis. Where you can carp
about someone's
proof but unable to do the proof yourself, comes naturally.


Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: "UK maths deterioration; here a UK math poster believes K is not divisible by K nor by 1" UK math insanity
Next: Energy weight of singularity