Prev: PARALLEL PROGRAMMING: TECHNIQUES AND APPLICATIONS USING NETWORKED
Next: deterioration of UK maths; UK math poster believes K is not divisible by K nor by 1; UK math insanity
From: sttscitrans on 11 Aug 2010 20:28
On 11 Aug, 22:14, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.


As you do not have the reasoning capacity to understand a single
sentence

"Every natural >1 has at least one prime divisor"

It is extemely unlikely that you could
understand the implications of two or more sentences
that would allow you to comprehend a proof.


From: sttscitrans on 11 Aug 2010 21:12
On 11 Aug, 22:14, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> sttscitr...(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,

Brilliant Archie Poo, absolutely brilliant.
You are on the verge of emerging from your sublime ignorance.

None of the primes divides w+1, NONE
NOT p1, NOT p2, .... NOT pn
There is not a single prime that divides w+1.

As 2) tells us that p1 or p2 or ... pn MUST
divide W+1, there is a contradiction.

2) Tells you something must be the case, one of the
primes p1,p2, pn must divide w+1

yet you have deduced that none of the primes
p1, p2, pn divides W+1.

I know this is a tremendous intellectual effort
for you, but do you not see that you have derived
another contradiction by youself?

Something that must be the case turns out not to be the case under a
particular assumption.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: PARALLEL PROGRAMMING: TECHNIQUES AND APPLICATIONS USING NETWORKED
Next: deterioration of UK maths; UK math poster believes K is not divisible by K nor by 1; UK math insanity