deterioration of UK maths; UK math poster believes K is not divisible by K nor by 1; UK math insanity
in [Math]
|
Prev: "UK maths deterioration; here a UK math poster believes K is not divisible by K nor by 1" UK math insanity
Next: Algebra behind proof of Goldbach with the interchange of addition to multiplication #5.19 Correcting Math
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 11 Aug 2010 21:20 sttscitrans(a)tesco.net 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. 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 11 Aug 2010 23:04
On 12 Aug, 02:20, Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > sttscitr...(a)tesco.net 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, Well Done. As you correctly deduce, none of the primes divides w+1, yet 2) says that some prime must divide w+1. A contradiction. We will continue to pretend that you do not understand the Key Theorem. Otherwise you might have to admit to talking nonsense for 20 years. |