Larry Hammick wrote:
(snipped)
> in Archie's bonnet. I remarked here at sci.math that there are several
> differences between Euclid's proof of IX.20
> http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookIX/propIX20.html
> and the modern version, although the basic ideas are same and the proof
is
> still attributed to Euclid. In particular,
>
Not true. Apparently you arrived at the sci.math in 2002.
I had started discussing the flaw of Euclid's IP in 1993-1994 sci.math
witness:
Sun, 20FEB1994, 21:05:13 GMT sci.math
INCONSISTENT PEANO AXIOMS AND MATH PROFESSORS
Lines: 36
Sender: k...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Karl Heuer)
k...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Karl Heuer) writes:
In article (5JChA8g2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
det...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Detlef Bosau) writes:
>Ludwig.Pluton...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
meinte am 18.02.94
>>det...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Detlef Bosau) writes:
>>>Wrong. Your two numbers are not necessarily prime
>>NO, YOU ARE WRONG. Those numbers are necessarily prime, due to
>>UPFAT, all the primes that exist in the finite set leave a remainder
>>of 1.
>I'll give you a lesson of elementary arithmetics. . .
I really shouldn't bother to get involved in this discussion again,
but
Ludwig is right. In logical terms, his key statement is "if P is a
finite set containing all the primes, then prod(P)+1 is prime." This
is
a true statement.
Let's step through your alleged counterexample:
>consider your set of primes to be: {2,3,5,7,11,13}, as I assert 13 to be
>the largest prime. [. . .] Now, you made the assertion, that
> > > > (2x3x5x11x13) + 1 [=30031] must be prime.
Yes, it's true that if 13 is the largest prime, then 30031 is prime.
Do
you disagree with that assertion?
>As you stated before, there exists an unique prime decomposition of
>30031. This is 59x509. It could be easily shown, that 59 and 509
>both are prime.
If 13 is the largest prime, then 59x509 is not a factorization of
30031.
--- end quoting Karl Heuer's post of 1994 ---
And earlier than 1993-4, I had sent a journal article to Notre Dame,
some
logic journal where I discussed the flaw of Euclid's IP circa
1991-1993
So, Larry, how is it that you influenced me in 1991 with your posts of
2002?
If you cannot even get your dates right, you expect to get the logic
of a math proof right?
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
