Prev: UK's Davidson believes some Naturals >1 are neither prime nor composite; so there must be something wrong in UK math education #5.07 Correcting Math
Next: ADVANCED ACCOUNTING HOYLE, 10TH EDITIONS TEST BANK
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 9 Aug 2010 18:12



Iain Davidson in UK
sttscitr...(a)tesco.net wrote:
> 1) A natural is prime if it has preceisly two distinct divisors

 > 2) Every natural >1 has at least one prime divisor
  > 3) GCD(m,m+1) = 1, for any natural m
  > 3) Assume pn is the last prime
  > 4) w = the product of all primes
  > 5) 3) => gcd(w,w+1) =1 => no prime divides w+1
  >    This contradicts 2)
  > 6) Therefore: Assumption 3 is false
  >   - pn is not last prime

The above is UK's Iain Davidson attempting to do a Euclid IP indirect.
Davidson is the first
person in the history of mathematics that believes Natural Numbers
exist that are neither prime nor composite, because Davidson never
accepted divisibility of K by K itself.

I do not know if Flath was a UK mathematician but he uses the same
lemma or theorem that
Davidson uses, only in a Direct method proof and Flath has no troubles
or problems.

--- quoting Daniel E. Flath INTRODUCTION TO NUMBER THEORY, 1989
page
2
---
Theorem 2.2 Euclid. There are infinitely many primes.
Proof. We shall show that every finite set of primes omits at least
one
prime. It will follow that no finite set can contain all the primes.
Let {p_1,p_2,...,p_r} be a finite set of prime numbers.
By Theorem 2.1, (Every positive integer n greater than 1 is a
product
of prime number.) , there is a prime divisor q of N = p_1*p_2*..*p_r
+1. Because q divide into N but p_i does not divide into N, the
prime
q
must be different from p_1,p_2,...,p_r.
--- end quoting INTRODUCTION TO NUMBER THEORY, Flath ---

So the question is, is UK mathematics rapidly in deterioration and
decline.
Does the UK math education pass off these illogical blokes so as to
get them
"out of their hair" and cause problems to others elsewhere.

Has the education system of the UK become such as to pass and graduate
knuckleheads
so as to pass their problems somewhere else?

It would be nice to say that Davidson is one of those computer
programs with rude human handlers, such as for example the "Hunter"
poster from Johns Hopkins in the 1990s.

Sat, 11 Nov 2000 16:35:53 -0500
James Hunter (James.Hunter(a)Jhuapl.edu)
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab, Laurel, MD, USA

Where we had a rude and ill mannered computer programmed poster but
the human handlers of Hunter were very rude with their added comments.

So it would be nice to say that Davidson is the Hunter of the UK, or
maybe Hunter moved operations to UK.

Or compare Davidson's numbers that are not divisible by themselves to
that of Ed Conrad
in the sci newsgroups who wastes time and energy on the idea of human
fossils in the time of
dinosaurs. So Davidson is the Ed Conrad of mathematics with his
numbers K not divisible by K.

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: sttscitrans on 10 Aug 2010 08:46
On 9 Aug, 23:12, Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Iain Davidson in UK

I see you are still having difficulty answering the
question

Is
"Every n >1 has at least one prime divisor"
a true statement ?

that I asked many posts ago

This is a simple question that even a slow
learner with your cognitive deficits should be
able to understand.

I previously assumed that you do not suffer from some
other handicap or impairment (other than low IQ) that prevents you
from reading my question correctly.

Why else would you answer another completely different question,
namely

Is
"Every n >1 has at least one prime divisor and every n is divisible by
n"
a true statement"

You are an extremely slow learner, I understand that.

The question I asked you was

Is
"Every n >1 has at least one prime divisor"
a true statement ?


If you do not know the answer to this question,
or do not understand the question simply say so.

You seemed to be claiming that the statement
"Every n >1 has at least one prime divisor"
was false.
Maybe you do not think that at all.
Maybe you do not know what you think.

I am not interested in your answer to a different question.

I am asking the question

Is
"Every n >1 has at least one prime divisor"
a true statement ?

not some other question.

Can you follow so far ?

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: UK's Davidson believes some Naturals >1 are neither prime nor composite; so there must be something wrong in UK math education #5.07 Correcting Math
Next: ADVANCED ACCOUNTING HOYLE, 10TH EDITIONS TEST BANK