On 2 jul, 20:55, plutonium.archime...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> malc...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> You have a touch of what I call the Jesse Hughes syndrome as
> illustrated in the
> Argus Leader news story of Archimedes Plutonium. This is a syndrome of
> where
> you hate someone and the hatred then never allows you to acknowledge
> the
> achievements of the person you hate. You belittle, you ignore, you
> dismiss,
> you attack the person, and no matter how high of a achievement, how
> im****tant
> the achievement, you simply can never acknowledge it.
>
> And I believe that such a condition are the signs that the person is
> no longer fit to
> be in education or the science.
>
> Imagine a professor on campus who hates a s****ts person, and who in
> the weekend
> won the game for the hometeam. And the professor failing to
> acknowledge the achievements
> of the s****ts person.
>
> Perhaps the prime reason we have "educators" is for the moment in
> which they can congratulate
> those who have achieved something academically or physically. And when
> we see educators
> full of hatred who cannot for a single moment acknowledge the
> achievement of others, is time,
> I believe for them to be pushed out of education since they do more
> harm than what little good.
>
> I have discovered there is a LOGICAL flaw in most renditions of the
> Euclid Infinitude of Primes Proof.
> I have written a book and published it on the Internet showing where
> many textbooks on math
> give an invalid proof of Infinitude of Primes. Hardy's book A
> Mathematicians Apology is one amoung
> 30 that fails to give a valid proof of Infinitude of Primes.
>
> It is a "big mistake". And not as Malcolm wants to dream is a minor
> mistake. For Malcolm is acting
> more like Jesse Hughes, in his hatred of Archimedes Plutonium, that
> you deny me of my achievement.
>
> If you taught a group of Grade School Children how to add and these
> children learn it for the first time
> and then you quized them with a sum such as this:
>
> Add this column:
> 3
> 5
> 10
> 9
> ____
>
> And 30 Grade school children handed in their answer and 28 of them
> summed to 18
> while two of the children summed to 27.
>
> Then both Malcolm and Jesse Hughes should congratulate those two who
> had the correct
> answer of 27. And even if they hated the guts of those two, should
> still congratulate them.
>
> Likewise.
>
> What I should as a fundamental mistake of logic reasoning performed by
> a group of 30
> math professors which included Montgomery in a Number theory textbook
> and include
> Hardy in A Mathematicians Apology and included Conway and many other
> math professors
> is akin to adding the above list and coming up with 18.
>
> The mistake that Hardy makes as well as thirty other professors of
> mathematics is that
> they commit themselves to a Reductio Ad Absurdum proof, but fail to
> apply the "definition
> of prime" that forces them to recognize that the new number has to be
> prime also. That if
> 3 and 5 were the only primes that exist, then 16 is also a prime
> number in this universe of
> all primes. That is the mistake made by nearly everyone who has
> written a Euclid Infinitude of
> Primes proof in a book.
>
> It is a big mistake, just as the Grade Schoolers added 10 as if it
> were a 1 and arrived at 18
> instead of the correct answer of 27.
>
> So for Malcolm and Jesse Hughes to continue to belittle and ignore and
> lambast my accomplishements
> to never accept my achievements, reflects more on your hatemongering.
>
> If any handful of pipsqueck professors of mathematics had corrected
> Hardy and a group of 30
> professors of their tainted and invalid attempt of Euclid Infinitude
> of Primes, they would have been
> touted around the world as the new genius. But because it was
> Archimedes Plutonium who
> accomplished this, the world only rises up to spew more hatred and
> suppression of the man
> who discovered the Atom Totality theory.
>
> Archimedes Plutoniumwww.iw.net/~a_plutonium
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies- Ocultar texto de la
cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
Just to put things in order:
I do not hate anyone. I just noted that in normal speech such kind of
mistakes are common and that it is also normal not to pay much
attention on them. Certainly one would expect any competent person in
any field to be able to grasp this kind of mistakes instantly.
However, as you have come to realize, this simply doesn't happen.
I think that the matter on how horrible the mistake is, is a bit
subjective. For me it is a curiosity, and I believe that it is due to
a confusion of two very similar proofs. I do not think any of those
mathematicians, Hardy included, would not have corrected their proofs
as soon as anyone would have made them note that.
I am sorry that you have felt my discussion as an attack.
The question about the primeness of the strange looking ......
13121110987654321 was serious. Is there anything similar to the
fundamental theorem of arithmetic for your AP-adics?
Cheers.
|
