Prev: geometry question on chords
Next: "the wronging of Mr. Devlin" by Hardy/Woodgold/Davis in Mathematical Intelligencer and convoluted math writing #4.03 Correcting Math
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 21 Jul 2010 16:33
For the life of me, I do not know why writing a date time on most
journals articles is
too cumbersome. They seem to put in big print the names of authors and
associates
but when someone wants a date of "Prime Simplicity" of Mathematical
Intelligencer, (MI)
one has to hunt around. Something more for Chandler Davis at MI to
fix. I am guessing
that this article is Sept of 2009, but when magazines are derelict of
including date
time groups then the reader can only guess.

--- quoting from Prime Simplicity of Mathematical Intelligencer, (Sept
2009 ??) ---
But confusingly, he left the first two of the
previously quoted sentences intact. That confusion would
not have happened if the technique of proof by contra-
diction had not been used. Devlin, in an earlier account [33]
of Euclid’s proof, does not assert it to be a proof by con-
tradiction.
--- end quoting ---

Now it maybe the case the Mr. Devlin was onto the correct and valid
proof of Infinitude of Primes by using the Indirect Method. For in
that method the only valid conclusion steps are that Euclid's Number
is necessarily a new prime number and thus is the prime that is sought
for in order to yield the contradiction.

But I do not expect either Hardy, Woodgold or Chandler Davis to see,
recognize or understand
that Euclid's number in Indirect is necessarily a prime number. Devlin
probably was onto that idea. Devlin probably had the instinct that
Euclid's number was necessarily prime. I do not expect that Hardy/
Woodgold/Chandler to know that because in their article, they fail to
do a proper job of listing what is a valid Direct and a valid
Indirect Method proof of Infinitude of Primes via Euclid.

For the life of me, if you are going to talk about wrongdoing in two
methods, what is so
difficult about listing the two valid methods?

Seems to me that it is not Mr. Devlin that needs any remedial logic
training but that Hardy
and Woodgold and Davis should have a bus to the nearest remedial logic
camp.

One would think, that if you are going to be pointing out errors of
logic over two methods, one would think that Mr. Chandler Davis,
Michael Hardy and Catherine Woodgold would have enough logic to
display both valid methods and then from that display, go charging
forth like some medeaval knights in armor correcting others. But no,
instead we have Hardy/Woodgold not even able to write out their own
versions of direct and indirect and borrowing Ore's version.

So in sum total, the article of "Prime Simplicity" is the use of Ore
versus others like Devlin. Why even bother to hire Hardy and Woodgold,
why not just have some computer fill in the
spaces of what Ore says and what Devlin says.

I guess in the days of the Internet with sci.math that magazines like
that of MI are deteriorating faster in quality of logic and not only
in advertisement sales.

But to lambast Mr. Devlin, when he probably was onto the correct path
of a valid Indirect Method proof, is bad behaviour by the authors who
never display a valid Indirect themselves.

Since Hardy/Woodgold and Davis lambast Devlin, it is obvious to me,
that they could never
do a valid Indirect of Euclid Infinitude of Primes, and that is
further supported by the fact
that the entire article never mentions that "if you are laboring under
a wrong method, surely
the validity of the proof is in doubt" and earlier, in the article,
Hardy mentions that constructive
is easily converted into contradiction, which indicates that Hardy
probably thinks (emphasize probably) every valid proof of
Infinitude of Primes after the first several steps would be identical
steps throughout. What this means is that Hardy, probably thinks that
you can cut off the top of a valid Indirect and replace it with the
top of a valid Direct argument.

And why even have managing editors like Mr. Chandler Davis with a poor
judgement call of
hiring a statistician and a electrical engineer to do a writeup of the
world's most famous ancient proof, over questions of logical
correctness? Does Mr. Davis ever realize that if you want to
evaluate the correctness of Euclid's IP proof and method, that one
should hire the best logicians of symbolic logic. I can think of
Thomason at Yale who authored Symbolic Logic books I used in college.
Why not get a logician to talk about the proper logic.

So it is painful to be reading a error filled article in a mathematics
magazine, talking about
two methods and the authors and editor, not even able to display the
two valid methods before
lambasting others.

So, maybe yes, maybe in this entire vast World of Earth of all its
humans, there are only two
humans who recognize a valid Euclid Infinitude of Primes Proof
Indirect. Only two humans,
Karl Heuer and AP understands that P-1 and P+1 are necessarily two new
prime numbers in Indirect, and which would thence yield a simple proof
of Infinitude of Twin Primes.

Perhaps it is best that the publishing industry is in such a turmoil
because of the Internet.
Because in the past history of science, and I know of several true
live cases of where
scientists works were stolen and others receiving the credit.
Publishing in the old days,
and where "Prime Simplicity" is an example as a poor system, that
often biases too many
and reaps rewards to those undeserving of being published. And it also
allows what I call
"little despot tin badge judges" like Mr. Chandler Davis to play games
with the input of authors.
Where the Internet, sci.math levels out this wrongdoings. Where
sci.math can be a "freedom
channel for voices of the truth" and override those channels of
despotism, favoritism, and
stealing of others intellectual property.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
From: sttscitrans on 21 Jul 2010 20:55
On 21 July, 21:33, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> Indirect. Only two humans,
> Karl Heuer and AP understands that P-1 and P+1 are necessarily two new
> prime numbers in Indirect, and which would thence yield a simple proof
> of Infinitude of Twin Primes.

One of these two genii claims that 16
is "neccessarily" prime if 3 and 5 are the only primes.

N = {1,2,3,4,5,....}
PRIMES = {3,5}
NONPRIMES = {1,2,4,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,..}

The AP definition of prime is that n >0
is prime if it is divisible only by 1 and itself.

16 = 2x8=4x4=2x2x2x2, so cannot be prime.
2 is not 1 and 2 is not 16

16 has no prime divisors.
The divisors of 16, (1,2,4,8,16) are all in
NONPRIMES and no element of PRIMES divides 16.
GCD(3x5,3x5+1) =GCD(15,16) = 1
So how can 16 be prime ?

Of course if 5 is the last prime then
gcd(3x5, n) n>5 can only be 3 , 5 or 15
given prime factorization for n>1.
but gcd(15,14) = 1.

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: geometry question on chords
Next: "the wronging of Mr. Devlin" by Hardy/Woodgold/Davis in Mathematical Intelligencer and convoluted math writing #4.03 Correcting Math