UK maths-- rotten apple, thanks to L Walker
in [Math]
|
Prev: proof of Goldbach without appeal to Galois Algebra, but some new math appears #5.24 Correcting Math
Next: alas, a proof of Goldbach without appeal to Algebra #5.25 Correcting Math
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 12 Aug 2010 05:16 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 06:12
On 12 Aug, 10:16, Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > sttscitr...(a)tesco.net wrote: > > Trouble is that L. Walker never pointed out that w+1 is divisible > by w+1 and divisible by 1, Why would he ? Every natural n is divisible by n and by 1 n = 1*n Has it taken you 20 plus years to work out what most children know by 10 ? "one times n is n" "n over n is one" Can you actually "do sums" at the level of a six year old ? |