Prev: smallest gap for 253! = 10^500?? #4.09 Correcting Math
Next: 137 to this makes 1/2 exact?? Re: smallest gap for 253! = 10^500?? #4.11 Correcting Math
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 23 Jul 2010 16:00


Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Transfer Principle wrote:

> > I notice that both JSH and AP are working on the Infinitude
> > of Twin Primes, but via different methods. JSH is looking at
> > congruences mod various primes, while AP is attempting to
> > modify Euclid's proof so that it works for Twin Primes.
> >
>
> Not modify; and let me say, to render the valid proof indirect. All
> other
> attempts of Indirect on Euclid Numbers were invalid proof arguments
> because only when P-1 and P+1 are necessarily new prime numbers
> is there a valid Euclid IP Indirect proof. So I am not modifying
> anything, I am
> rendering the first valid Euclid IP Indirect. And why would any
> intelligent mathematician,
> knowing that Regular Primes infinitude is a more general theory than
> just the subset of
> Twin Primes, why would any mathematician with his/her thinking cap on,
> think that
> the Euclid method cannot yield Twin Primes when it yields Regular
> Primes.

LWalk, I am inviting you to become the third human of all human beings
to do a valid
Euclid Infinitude of Primes Proof, Indirect Method. So far in human
history, only two
human beings had enough logical capacity within their minds to do a
valid Euclid IP
Indirect. I wish for you to become the third human.

(1) definition of prime number
(2) hypothetical assumption, assume the primes are finite and that
the
sequence list is 2,3, 5, 7, 11, . . , p_k
(3) multiply the lot and add 1, calling it W+1
(4) W+1 is necessarily a new prime because of definition in (1)
joining with the fact that
division of W+1 by all the primes that exist in (2) leave a remainder
(5) contradiction to (2) that p_k is the largest and last prime, for W
+1 is now the largest prime
(6) reverse supposition step (2) and primes are infinite

LWalk, all you have to do to become the third human to have done a
valid Euclid IP Indirect
and the only humans to do a valid Indirect, since all Indirect Euclid
IP has to have W+1 as
necessarily prime.

All you have to do LWalk is agree that the above is a valid Euclid
Indirect.

Just say yes, and then I will count you as the third human being to be
able to do a valid
proof indirect.

Keep in mind, every Indirect before was invalid.

And it is because no-one before the 1990s could muster a valid Euclid
IP, that no-one could do
a Infinitude of Twin Primes. Since the above gives that W-1 and W+1
are necessarily two new primes and twin primes.

So LWalk, I invite you to become the third human to first do a valid
Indirect proof.


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
From: Tonico on 23 Jul 2010 16:12
On Jul 23, 11:00 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Transfer Principle wrote:
> > > I notice that both JSH and AP are working on the Infinitude
> > > of Twin Primes, but via different methods. JSH is looking at
> > > congruences mod various primes, while AP is attempting to
> > > modify Euclid's proof so that it works for Twin Primes.
>
> > Not modify; and let me say, to render the valid proof indirect. All
> > other
> > attempts of Indirect on Euclid Numbers were invalid proof arguments
> > because only when P-1 and P+1 are necessarily new prime numbers
> > is there a valid Euclid IP Indirect proof. So I am not modifying
> > anything, I am
> > rendering the first valid Euclid IP Indirect. And why would any
> > intelligent mathematician,
> > knowing that Regular Primes infinitude is a more general theory than
> > just the subset of
> > Twin Primes, why would any mathematician with his/her thinking cap on,
> > think that
> > the Euclid method cannot yield Twin Primes when it yields Regular
> > Primes.
>
> LWalk, I am inviting you to become the third human of all human beings
> to do a valid
> Euclid Infinitude of Primes Proof, Indirect Method. So far in human
> history, only two
> human beings had enough logical capacity within their minds to do a
> valid Euclid IP
> Indirect. I wish for you to become the third human.
>
> (1) definition of prime number
> (2) hypothetical assumption, assume the primes are finite and that
> the
> sequence list is 2,3, 5, 7, 11, . . , p_k
> (3) multiply the lot and add 1, calling it W+1
> (4) W+1 is necessarily a new prime because of definition in (1)
> joining with the fact that
> division of W+1 by all the primes that exist in (2) leave a remainder
> (5) contradiction to (2) that p_k is the largest and last prime, for W
> +1 is now the largest prime
> (6) reverse supposition step (2) and primes are infinite
>
> LWalk, all you have to do to become the third human to have done a
> valid Euclid IP Indirect
> and the only humans to do a valid Indirect, since all Indirect Euclid
> IP has to have W+1 as
> necessarily prime.
>
> All you have to do LWalk is agree that the above is a valid Euclid
> Indirect.
>
> Just say yes, and then I will count you as the third human being to be
> able to do a valid
> proof indirect.


Yes, yes ...YES!!!!!!!!!!!


Phew!! I said it before Lwalke so Archie: count ME as the third human
being to be able to do that thing (btw, who's the second one??).
Please do publish the official diploma here. Thanx.

I win, I win...!

Tonio




From: David R Tribble on 23 Jul 2010 16:39
Transfer Principle wrote:
>> I notice that both JSH and AP are working on the Infinitude
>> of Twin Primes, but via different methods. JSH is looking at
>> congruences mod various primes, while AP is attempting to
>> modify Euclid's proof so that it works for Twin Primes.
>

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> LWalk[er], I am inviting you to become the third human of all human beings
>> to do a valid
>> Euclid Infinitude of Primes Proof, Indirect Method. So far in human
>> history, only two
>> human beings had enough logical capacity within their minds to do a
>> valid Euclid IP
>> Indirect. I wish for you to become the third human.
>>
>> (1) definition of prime number
>> (2) hypothetical assumption, assume the primes are finite and that
>> the sequence list is 2,3, 5, 7, 11, . . , p_k
>> (3) multiply the lot and add 1, calling it W+1
>> (4) W+1 is necessarily a new prime because of definition in (1)
>> joining with the fact that
>> division of W+1 by all the primes that exist in (2) leave a remainder
>> (5) contradiction to (2) that p_k is the largest and last prime, for W+1
>> is now the largest prime
>> (6) reverse supposition step (2) and primes are infinite
>>
>> LWalk[er], all you have to do to become the third human to have done a
>> valid Euclid IP Indirect
>> and the only humans to do a valid Indirect, since all Indirect Euclid
>> IP has to have W+1 as
>> necessarily prime.
>>
>> All you have to do LWalk[er] is agree that the above is a valid Euclid
>> Indirect.
>>
>> Just say yes, and then I will count you as the third human being to be
>> able to do a valid
>> proof indirect.
>

Tonico wrote:
> Yes, yes ...YES!!!!!!!!!!!
> Phew!! I said it before LWalker so Archie: count ME as the third human
> being to be able to do that thing (btw, who's the second one??).
> Please do publish the official diploma here. Thanx.
> I win, I win...!

I think congratulations are in order.

Tough luck, L. Walker.
From: herbzet on 23 Jul 2010 16:40


Tonico wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Transfer Principle wrote:
>
> > > > I notice that both JSH and AP are working on the Infinitude
> > > > of Twin Primes, but via different methods. JSH is looking at
> > > > congruences mod various primes, while AP is attempting to
> > > > modify Euclid's proof so that it works for Twin Primes.
> >
> > > Not modify; and let me say, to render the valid proof indirect. All
> > > other
> > > attempts of Indirect on Euclid Numbers were invalid proof arguments
> > > because only when P-1 and P+1 are necessarily new prime numbers
> > > is there a valid Euclid IP Indirect proof. So I am not modifying
> > > anything, I am
> > > rendering the first valid Euclid IP Indirect. And why would any
> > > intelligent mathematician,
> > > knowing that Regular Primes infinitude is a more general theory than
> > > just the subset of
> > > Twin Primes, why would any mathematician with his/her thinking cap on,
> > > think that
> > > the Euclid method cannot yield Twin Primes when it yields Regular
> > > Primes.
> >
> > LWalk, I am inviting you to become the third human of all human beings
> > to do a valid
> > Euclid Infinitude of Primes Proof, Indirect Method. So far in human
> > history, only two
> > human beings had enough logical capacity within their minds to do a
> > valid Euclid IP
> > Indirect. I wish for you to become the third human.
> >
> > (1) definition of prime number
> > (2) hypothetical assumption, assume the primes are finite and that
> > the
> > sequence list is 2,3, 5, 7, 11, . . , p_k
> > (3) multiply the lot and add 1, calling it W+1
> > (4) W+1 is necessarily a new prime because of definition in (1)
> > joining with the fact that
> > division of W+1 by all the primes that exist in (2) leave a remainder
> > (5) contradiction to (2) that p_k is the largest and last prime, for W
> > +1 is now the largest prime
> > (6) reverse supposition step (2) and primes are infinite
> >
> > LWalk, all you have to do to become the third human to have done a
> > valid Euclid IP Indirect
> > and the only humans to do a valid Indirect, since all Indirect Euclid
> > IP has to have W+1 as
> > necessarily prime.
> >
> > All you have to do LWalk is agree that the above is a valid Euclid
> > Indirect.
> >
> > Just say yes, and then I will count you as the third human being to be
> > able to do a valid
> > proof indirect.
>
> Yes, yes ...YES!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Phew!! I said it before Lwalke so Archie: count ME as the third human
> being to be able to do that thing (btw, who's the second one??).
> Please do publish the official diploma here. Thanx.
>
> I win, I win...!

Damn! Beaten again.

--
hz
From: sttscitrans on 23 Jul 2010 17:52
On 23 July, 21:00, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Transfer Principle wrote:

(Much mindless gushing deleted)

> So LWalk, I invite you to become the third human to first do a valid
> Indirect proof.

Only the first human to do so can be first to do a valid indirect
proof.

The third man to climb Everest cannot be the first
to do so.

Obviously, this is the precise logic
that leads AP into to thinking w+1 is "necessarily"
prime.

Have you decided yet whether 1 is or is not a prime ?

How can your proof be valid if you define 1 as a prime number but do
not include 1 in your ascending list
of assumed finite set of primes ?

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: smallest gap for 253! = 10^500?? #4.09 Correcting Math
Next: 137 to this makes 1/2 exact?? Re: smallest gap for 253! = 10^500?? #4.11 Correcting Math