From: sttscitrans on 13 Aug 2010 03:55 On 13 Aug, 03:05, Barb Knox wrote:> In article > <5736e570-1771-4f9a-9b8a-36e14aec8...(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > >  "sttscitr...(a)tesco.net" wrote: > > On 11 Aug, 06:24, Barb Knox wrote: > > > In article > > > <4b99bf87-a8a6-43f8-969d-0deeb8cf7...(a)l14g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, > > > >  "sttscitr...(a)tesco.net" wrote: > > > > On 10 Aug, 17:04, Archimedes Plutonium > > > > 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