in [Logic]

Prev: not yet a conventional proof of Goldbach #5.30 Correcting Math
Next: Equivalent statement to the Golbach conjecture #5.31 Correcting Math
From: sttscitrans on 13 Aug 2010 03:55 On 13 Aug, 03:05, Barb Knox <s... (a)sig.below> wrote:> In article > <5736e570-1771-4f9a-9b8a-36e14aec8... (a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,> > > > > > "sttscitr... (a)tesco.net" <sttscitr...(a)tesco.net> wrote:> > On 11 Aug, 06:24, Barb Knox <s... (a)sig.below> wrote:> > > In article > > > <4b99bf87-a8a6-43f8-969d-0deeb8cf7... (a)l14g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,> > > > "sttscitr... (a)tesco.net" <sttscitr...(a)tesco.net> wrote:> > > > On 10 Aug, 17:04, Archimedes Plutonium > > > > <plutonium.archime... (a)gmail.com> wrote:> > > > > sttscitr... (a)tesco.net wrote:> > > > > sttscitr... (a)tesco.net wrote:> > > > > > You still have not answered my question. > > > > > > If the Key Theorem > > > > > > "Every natural >1 has a prime divisor" > > > > > > state the true **full theorem**, idiot, > > > > > Buffoon - > > > > "Every natural >1 has at least one prime divisor" > > > > is the full theorem. > > > > > "Every natural >1 has a prime divisor" > > > > > This statement is either true or false. > > > > If it is true it is a theorem. > > > > > You claim it is false. > > > > So which n> 1 has no prime divisors ? > > > > > n = nx1 is trivially true - 1 is the identity element. > > > > Yes, but 1 is not a prime. > > > No one, except perhaps AP, is claiming that 1 is prime. > > Except you seem to have implied that "n = nx1 is trivially true" is > proof (or at least evidence) that every n has a prime divisor. N'est-ce > pas? No |