Prev: why Davidson cannot learn from Flath -- Euclid's IP proof #5.17 Correcting Math
Next: John Ramsden like Julia F. Knight and Chandler Davis incompetent to write out a Euclid IP, indirect #5.18 Correcting Math
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 11 Aug 2010 17:14


sttscitrans(a)tesco.net wrote:
(when the rudeness is snipped there is nothing left)

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


Mr. L. Walker, and here is Iain Davidson's attempt that you endorsed
as true:


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.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: why Davidson cannot learn from Flath -- Euclid's IP proof #5.17 Correcting Math
Next: John Ramsden like Julia F. Knight and Chandler Davis incompetent to write out a Euclid IP, indirect #5.18 Correcting Math