On 1 jul, 18:20, plutonium.archime...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Tues, Feb 19 2008 9:54 pm was the last time I remember posting to this
> book, but since my recent
> appearance in a South Dakota newspaper that asks the question: Is
> Archimedes Plutonium a genius.
> Well, that answer is easy to answer.
>
> I wrote a book correcting about 30 professors of mathematics who each
> wrote a book wherein they
> gave their own proof of the Euclid Infinitude of Primes and G. H.
> Hardy was amoung that group
> and there were other prominent mathematicians in that group. And Hardy
> is considered a genius
> but if Hardy could not deliver a valid Euclid Infinitude of Primes
> proof and it took Archimedes Plutonium
> to show where those 30 professors of math made a big mistake. And if
> we consider Hardy
> a genius, then we have to say that Archimedes Plutonium must be a
> genius.
>
> What Archimedes Plutonium did to correct Euclid Infinitude of Primes
> proof is show that in the
> indirect method of reductio ad absurdum, that you have to fall back on
> an earlier step in the proof
> which is the definition of prime and by doing so, this referring back
> to the earlier step, forces the
> prover to have to say that the new number formed of multiply the lot
> and add 1, is necessarily and
> irrefutably a new prime. The mistake that Hardy and 30 math professors
> make is they mix the
> direct method with the indirect method and end up with a confused
> invalid proof argument.
>
> Now I bring that up not because I want to arrogantly fluant that I am
> a genius and easily verified
> by having corrected mathematics of its Euclid Infinitude of Primes
> Proof, but also because, in
> writing this post, I have discovered some new information on the
> Infinitude of Twin Primes and
> why the Natural Numbers as "finite integers" is a fake set of numbers.
> As fake as the idea that
> fire breathing dragons exist.
>
> The real Counting Numbers are not finite specimens. The real Counting
> Numbers are each a
> infinitely long string. The number 1 is not 1 but is really an
> infinite string ....000000001. We ignore
> all those zeroes to the left, not because they are meaningless but
> because we are not advanced
> in mind and intelligence to realize every number is "infinite". And
> for mathematics of the past, they
> thought a rule that only finite strings could be numbers and could be
> well-defined were simply deluded
> people.
>
> The number ....99999999 although infinite is a Natural Number the same
> as the numbers 1,2,3 etc.
>
> I called this set of all numbers ....000000, then ....000001,
> then .....0000002, all the way up to and
> including .....999999999 the AP-adics but they are also the Counting
> Numbers and the Natural-Numbers.
>
> So what we teach in mathematics at present and in the past, those
> numbers which we called the
> Counting Numbers or Natural Numbers as "finite integers" were a bag of
> lies. They were useful, mighty
> useful, but because they were a bag of tricks and lies, they started
> to cause the buildup of a huge
> mountain of unsolved problems in mathematics and to name a few--
> Riemann Hypothesis, Fermat's
> Last Theorem, and one which I am going to talk about now-- Infinitude
> of Twin Primes Conjecture.
>
> Euclid in his famous proof of the Infinitude of Primes did a elegant
> proof and as become a gem of
> mathematics and the intellectual heritage of the world. This proof is
> often called one of the top ten
> mathematical gems.
>
> TWIN PRIMES INFINITUDE CONJECTURE: there are some primes called twin
> primes since they are
> separated by a metric of 2, such as 3 and 5 and such as 11 and 13. But
> are there an infinitude of these
> Twin Primes?
>
> If mathematics with its definition of Natural Numbers as "finite
> integers" was not a lie and a sack of
> ill-defined contraptions, the question is, why so easy of a proof for
> all the primes-- 2,3,5,7, 11, 13,....
> Why so easy of a proof, yet when you ask for the infinitude of twin
> primes, why nearly impossible
> to find a proof?
>
> Now let us stand back for a moment and review all of mathematics and
> its proofs. Whenever in mathematics
> you have a "true and well defined area" and if you provide a proof of
> something such as infinitude of
> some objects, if that area is really well defined, then by logic, a
> subclass of that infinitude of objects
> should be easier to prove than the original infinitude of that object.
>
> In the AP-adics, we use and endorse the Euclid Infinitude of Primes
> proof. We simply recognize
> that we have the primes not as 2, 3, 5, 7, .... but as ....
> 000002, .....00003, ....000005, etc
>
> But we also have these strange looking primes ......13121110987654321
>
> So in AP-adics we endorse the Euclid Infinitude of Primes Proof, and
> now is requested to prove the
> Infinitude of Twin Primes. Simple for us since all we do is take the
> Twin Primes of 11 and 13 and
> we construct a proof that Twin Primes are infinite as such:
>
> .....131211109876543211 with ....131211109876543213
> now the next pair of twin primes is that we eliminate the "2" that
> precedes the 11 and 13 as such:
> .....13121110987654311 with .....13121110987654313
> now we continue to eliminate the "3" before the 11 and the 13 to
> construct our next pair of twin primes
> and we do this construction knowing it is endless and thus the Twin
> Primes are Infinite.
>
> So in mathematics, when you have a true set of numbers that are well
> defined and not a phony bag
> of lies, once you have proven the "overarching theorem of infinitude
> of primes" the infinitude of a lesser
> class of primes should be as easy as the AP-adics proof of the
> Infinitude of Twin Primes.
>
> But with the phony bag of lies that Natural Numbers are "finite
> integers" it is impossible to prove
> Infinitude of Twin Primes. Yes impossible, and let me show why it is
> impossible by using the above
> construction.
>
> In order to prove Infinitude of Twin Primes as the phony set of
> "finite integers" all that one needs to
> do is show that just one single pair in each category above is a Twin
> Prime Pair.
>
> In the above I show two categories of these two:
> .....131211109876543211 with ....131211109876543213
> .....13121110987654311 with .....13121110987654313
>
> Now, Infinitude of Twin Primes proof in the old finite integer scheme
> requires a simply thing. It only
> requires that we find a set of twin primes in each category.
>
> This is the first category:
> .....131211109876543211 with ....131211109876543213
>
> So we ask, is 211 and 213 twin primes in "finite integers" if not,
> then we ask is 3211 and 3213
> twin primes in "finite integers".
>
> Simple and easy. To prove Infinitude of Twin Primes in "finite
> integers" requires us to simply find
> a pair of twin primes in each category of the AP-adics.
>
> Mind you, the AP-adics proved Twin Primes are infinite in "infinite
> integers", but why in the world
> cannot the "finite integers" come forth with a proof?
>
> The answer is obvious. Noone in mathematics can ever prove Infinitude
> of Twin Primes simply because
> they are a phony and liaring set of ill-defined numbers. There is no
> "finite integer" for all numbers extend
> infinitely long.
>
> The reason the AP-adics can swallow up and validate Euclids method of
> proving Infinitude of Primes
> and then turn around and in 5 minutes prove the Infinitude of Twin
> Primes is because Natural Numbers
> are all "infinite integers". They are not a bag of phony lies of Loch
> Ness or Bigfoot or fire breathing dragons.
>
> Now some may pop their stupid heads up and say that Twin Primes is a
> Godel undecidable conjecture.
> These are only more stupid people who would propose that, because
> Godel's undecidable proof was
> based on another falsehood found in mathematics of the Cantor
> Diagonal, but that is too long of a story
> here.
>
> The basic facts are these: It is reasonable to expect that if you can
> build a car engine, you can build
> smaller engines to run smaller things like lawnmowers. If you can
> prove the infinitude of regular primes,
> then mathematics should easily prove a smaller subclass of primes
> whether they are infinite or not.
> Since mathematics proves infinitude of regular primes via Euclid
> method and since AP-adics easily
> proves infinitude of twin primes, would tell a commonsense person that
> the trouble with this picture
> is that modern mathematics is under a false and delusion that "finite
> integers" holds any reality.
>
> Now recently in a newspaper article on Archimedes Plutonium in the
> South Dakota newspaper which
> showed me on the front cover and had a full page story on me has Jesse
> Hughes commenting about
> me saying this:
> --- quoting a biased Argus Leader story over Archimedes Plutonium ---
> Jesse Hughes, an
> adjunct professor of philosophy at Bennett College and Salem State
> College in Arlington, Mass., in an e-mail.
>
> Hughes, a long-time contributor to many of the same Usenet newsgroup
> that Plutonium frequents, called Plutonium's theory "mind-bogglingly
> silly," and dubbed him the "reigning king of Usenet cranks."
>
> --- end quoting ---
>
> All I have to say about Jesse Hughes is where did he ever correct
> Hardy and thirty other
> math professors who could not do a valid Euclid Infinitude of Primes
> proof? Show me any
> post by Hughes where he puts forth some new ideas of mathematics and
> where he corrects
> the Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof.
>
> I would dare say that Hughes, in all of his life as a philosophy
> professor was unable to even
> deliver a valid proof of Euclid Infinitude of Primes, and people like
> this become so sour and bitter
> towards other people who do have new ideas that Hughes lashes out at
> them and calls them
> "cranks".
>
> Archimedes Plutoniumwww.iw.net/~a_plutonium
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
I have had a lot of fun reading all this stuff. I have also read
http://groups.google.com.by/group/sci.logic/msg/a6235d5653d6af68
I think that what Hardy had in mind is that since natural numbers are
well ordered, to prove the infinitude of primes you just need to prove
that the subset of all prime numbers greater than any given prime is
not empty. This and the reductio ad absurdum proof are both based on
the construction of the number 'product of primes plus one', so it is
normal to somehow 'confuse' them, being each of them correct in their
own.
Mathematicians do not normally write formal proofs but instead they
sort of describe them; they tell us how we should be able to write a
formal proof. This being understood, it is normal that whenever we
talk about things we know and understand well we make mistakes in our
discourse which, from a pragmatic point of view, can perfectly be
ignored without any damage. So giving any im****tance to that kind of
mistakes doesn't make anyone any sort of genius.
By the way, why should these strange looking ......13121110987654321
be a prime?
Cheers.
|
