Prev: How Can ZFC/PA do much of Math - it Can't Even Prove PA is Consistent (EASY PROOF)
Next: blackbody CMBR and why kelvin scale is special Chapt 3 #210; ATOM TOTALITY
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 29 Jun 2010 08:10
> [0] Michael *Hardy* and Catherine Woodgold,
> "*Prime* *Simplicity*",  *Mathematical
> Intelligencer<https://mail.google.com/wiki/Mathematical_Intelligencer>


I raise a challenge to the editors of Mathematical Intelligencer (MI).
As I said earlier,
I am upset that they lifted 1/2 of my work of thousands of posts to
sci.math from 1993 to present on this topic of Euclid's Infinitude of
Primes
proof in that it was a Direct/Constructive proof and not a Indirect/
Contradiction proof
with no reference attribution.

But the heart of the issue or problem is really not whether Euclid did
a Constructive
or a Contradiction proof. Is it? The real important matter is whether
someone, anyone
can do a valid Constructive alongside a valid Contradiction proof. So
that the demonstrator
does two proofs. And let the bystanders, the audience, the students
and pupils see
what the difference is.

Why does Hardy/Woodgold yakkity yak about direct method, never
displaying a valid
direct alongside a valid indirect? If this were a court of law and a
defense and prosecution
case, why not allow the evidence for both the Direct along with the
Indirect. The trial
would be horribly unfair and slanted, if the Direct showed evidence
but the Indirect
was not allowed to show any evidence.

Reserve an entire issue of MI of some future upcoming issue just
showing the Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof of having at least 6 or
more different people doing two proofs, one direct, the
other indirect of Euclid's IP.

That is not too much to ask, seeing that the above article implies
that scores of mathematicians cannot even tell whether a proof is
constructive or contradiction.

Someone posted that Harold Edwards was enthusiastic about this 2009
article above.
But is Harold Edwards enthusiastic enough to be reasonable and logical
to have
his two versions, direct and indirect printed in MI?

Is Hardy and Woodgold up for the challenge of having in their own
words
publish both direct and indirect method alongside each other of Euclid
IP?

To demonstrate to anyone that a Toyota has different mechanics than a
GM, we need to
have both vehicles in hand and peering at their engines in close
scrutiny.

My challenge is reasonable; my challenge is logical and forthright.

In that article the authors praise Ore for doing a direct method, but
they never
show where Ore does a valid indirect method. Is it that Ore (hopefully
still alive to
take the challenge) cannot do the indirect method validly or is it
that noone asked
Ore to do both methods with a valid proof to compare?

In that article, Hardy/Woodgold excoriate Devlin for claims that P+1
was necessarily prime.
Is Devlin still alive to take the challenge of having both direct and
indirect printed in
a future issue of MI? Because the excoriation of Devlin would turn
into praise, because
in the valid indirect method, P+1 can only be necessarily prime.

So can MI take the challenge? Reserve an entire future edition of
their magazine to
the printing of a select number of mathematicians, (if mine are wanted
would be happy to
oblige). But to reserve space in this future issue that is devoted to
having both a valid
direct and valid indirect Euclid IP.

When we ever run into a mechanics challenge, when people want to know
the difference
of a Toyota versus a GM, or the difference of a direct IP or indirect
IP, we do not bring
in just the Toyota and just talk about the GM.
If we are to have a Mechanics challenge as to whether Toyota prius or
the GM volt
are this and that, then we act rational and logical and commonsense,
in that we get both vehicles and do a thorough analysis of the engines
and body of both. We do not just get the
prius and blabber about the volt. After we examined both, then we can
talk about their
differences.

It is rather funny and ridiculuous that mathematics, the science of
precision, and yet
a article on Euclid's Infinitude of Primes proof lambasting tens even
hundreds even thousands
of mathematicians and others for failing to recognize Euclid did a
"direct method", yet
not once did it occur to the authors or editors of that article, that
they should have
the direct and indirect up front and in plain view, before any
accusations of error
are hurled.

So, a huge can of worms has been opened here with this article,
accusing many a
mathematician that they failed and flunked with error of not knowing
direct from indirect.
But that is only the start of this can of worms. The larger issue is
whether any mathematician
ever understood what a valid Euclid Infinitude of Primes indirect
method looks like? Does
Michael Hardy, or Catherine Woodgold, or Harold Edwards know what a
valid Euclid Indirect
method proof of Infinitude of Primes looks like? We will never know
unless they can
summon themselves into displaying both direct and indirect proofs, one
alongside the other.

So, take the challenge, and see if you really do know the Infinitude
of Primes proof.
Or whether you want to do a lousy job of presenting only the Direct
and then go accusing
others of not knowing the difference between direct and indirect.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
From: spudnik on 29 Jun 2010 19:53
what sort of an editorial board "secret peer task force" would
it take, to collate & interpret your gargantuan proofology?

dood, take heed:
proof requires the use of the two words,
neccesity & sufficiency in ordinary language;
if you can't set that bar & shimmy under or
jump over it, how can any one else be expected to parse your ****?

> So, take the challenge, and see if you really do know the Infinitude
> of Primes proof.
> Or whether you want to do a lousy job of presenting only the Direct
> and then go accusing
> others of not knowing the difference between direct and indirect.

thus&so:
waht if the same guy/ette who was the source d'Eaugate
for Bernward, was also the Vice President,
who purposely set his mattress on fire in the first tower
(second was hit by a 757 filled with fuel for most
of a transcontinental flight, minus the steering loop);
and, so, how many mattresses'd he have'd to set,
to make for a controlled demolition?

well, some of us believe that
he was not just the acting president --
especially since the impeachment of Bill C..

also, what in Heck is a one-ball centrifuge --
doesn't one need two, at the least, for balance?

thus&so:
Hensel's lemma -- yeah, team!...
anyway, what is it called, that one can use "mod p"
on either side of the equation or inequality?
> 2^(p-2) mod p is just 2^-1 mod p == (p+1)/2

--BP's cap&trade plus free beer points on your CO2 creds at ARCO!
http://wlym.com
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: How Can ZFC/PA do much of Math - it Can't Even Prove PA is Consistent (EASY PROOF)
Next: blackbody CMBR and why kelvin scale is special Chapt 3 #210; ATOM TOTALITY