Prev: MINUS 1 TANGENT DEFINED EXACTLY AND HISTORICALLY BY HOPE RESEARCH NEW MATH CONCEPT OF +1= +1x-1x-1= 1 BECAUSE OF WEIGHTED NEGATIVE 1
Next: improving my Goldbach proof without needing Galois Algebra #5.20 Correcting Math
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 11 Aug 2010 23:30

sttscitr...(a)tesco.net wrote:

(when the rudeness is cut, there is nothing left)


The troubles began when L. Walker said Iain Davidson had a true
proof.


Iain Davidson


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


Trouble is that L. Walker never pointed out that w+1 is divisible
by w+1 and divisible by 1, and since none of the primes divides into
w+1, that w+1 is necessarily a new prime.


Hence there is no contradiction to 2) and hence no proof.


So until L. Walker admits his mistake of approving a fake-proof, we
are just going to see
more rudeness and a deterioration of math posting from the UK.


Usually the people of UK are overly polite and deem our praise on
their politeness, but I guess
every barrel has its rotten apple.
From: sttscitrans on 12 Aug 2010 04:18
On 12 Aug, 04:30, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> sttscitr...(a)tesco.net wrote:
>
> (when the rudeness is cut, there is nothing left)
>
> The troubles began when L. Walker said Iain Davidson had a true
> proof.
>
> Iain Davidson
>
> 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
>
> Trouble is that L. Walker never pointed out that w+1 is divisible
> by w+1 and divisible by 1, and since none of the primes divides into
> w+1, that w+1 is necessarily a new prime.

1 is divisible by itself and 1 divides 1 and no prime
divides 1.

Are you saying that 1 is prime ?
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: MINUS 1 TANGENT DEFINED EXACTLY AND HISTORICALLY BY HOPE RESEARCH NEW MATH CONCEPT OF +1= +1x-1x-1= 1 BECAUSE OF WEIGHTED NEGATIVE 1
Next: improving my Goldbach proof without needing Galois Algebra #5.20 Correcting Math