Larry Hammick wrote:
> <plutonium.archimedes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:e6c0d43e-e82d-44aa-bcee-0905d9674f6c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > 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.
>
> Sounds about right.
>
> >
> > 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)
>
> Okay, but were you looking at Euclid himself, or at Hardy and the
numerous
> other writers who speak of "the set of all primes" and "Euclid's proof"?
> Anyhow, it's a trivial quibble.
Larry, I doubt you can even give a valid Euclid IP both direct and
indirect without major flaws.
You want to give it a try?
