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
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: not yet a conventional proof of Goldbach #5.30 Correcting Math
Next: Equivalent statement to the Golbach conjecture #5.31 Correcting Math