Prev: using geometry to show why there is a Infinitude of Primes proof but no Twin Primes possible #617 Correcting Math
Next: A proof that Geometry is clean but Algebra is tainted by not having finite-number definition #619 Correcting Math
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 30 Jun 2010 22:15


Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
>
> Sorry, this post is too long already, and I am not able to explain why
> Twin primes has no proof
> yet regular primes has a proof when the old system of math never
> defined finite-number from
> infinite-number. The geometry talk does not explain the cutoff from
> Regular primes to Twin Primes unprovability. I am searching for a
> geometry reason why Twin Primes is never provable, rather than the
> Place-Value explanation. It may come down that I cannot explain it
> without Place Value.
>

In my last post I noted an interesting theorem that noone in goemetry
or mathematics
proposed or proved.

Theorem: in geometry there never can be constructed a infinite-line
from any number
of finite line segments.
Proof: Since old math does not recognize infinite-numbers, that no
matter how many
finite number of line segments we put together, they still will never
summon into an
infinite-line-ray. However, if a precision definition is given in
geometry or algebra saying
that finite-number means all numbers less than 10^500 and over that is
infinite-numbers.
Well, with that definition we can say that an infinite number of
finite line segments builds
a infinite-line-ray.

Now the problem of Place Value is also solved and I can stop typing in
numbers
like 9999.....99999 or 99999....99997.

Because when finite-number is defined as less than 10^500 and all
numbers above that
are infinite-numbers. Then we can type in infinite numbers with place
values such as
10^505 is an infinite number and has a place value of significance
tied into all the numbers
below it.

So in a sense, I believe, the only way to solve this crisis in
mathematics of well-defining
finite number to infinite-number is to place this boundary (I prefer
the largest number in
Physics) and then this boundary thus gives meaning to Place-Value of
infinity.

What it all does, in the end, is make us understand that infinity
means merely, beyond our
ability to count or measure physical things. Physics stops for us at
infinity. The infinity
in the old math meant someone on a spiritual order or a religious
nonsense order of something eternal, everlasting.

So that when we ask, are the primes infinite, what we really are
asking is whether there are
10^500 set of primes. And when we ask are the Twin Primes infinite, we
are asking if there is
a set of twin primes that has a cardinality equal to 10^500.

And when we ask how many unit line segments does it take to form a
infinite-line-ray, the
answer is 10^500 such unit line segments put together forms a infinite-
line-ray.

P.S. I made a gross error in previous posts by saying the primes and
twin primes are infinite
if just one such is found that is larger than 10^500. Corrected, that
should have read, a set is
infinite if its cardinality is greater than 10^500, for it does no
good to just find one sample beyond the boundary of 10^500. One must
find an entire set containing 10^500 such types
of numbers to call them an infinite set.

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
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: using geometry to show why there is a Infinitude of Primes proof but no Twin Primes possible #617 Correcting Math
Next: A proof that Geometry is clean but Algebra is tainted by not having finite-number definition #619 Correcting Math