Prev: John Ramsden shines Re: grounds for dismissal of Julia F. Knight and Chandler Davis as math journal editors #5.12 Correcting Math
Next: New Generation Lossless Data Representations
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 11 Aug 2010 00:34


Transfer Principle wrote:

>
> Then what would happen if I were to say that both AP and
> Davidson are _wrong_ -- and that the true key theorem is:
>
> Every natural >1 is divisible by itself _and_1_ and has a prime
> divisor
>
> AneN (n>1 -> (n|n & 1|n & Ep (p prime & p|n)))
>
> Other than that, I don't know what else to say!


You need to say where Davidson is wrong in the below offering that you
had initially endorsed.

Well, I will accept that, for I had not included " _and_1_"

But that still leaves you, L . Walker as having endorsed a fake
proof--

And what is pathetic about your endorsement is that you endorsed
Davidson, but Davidson had never posted a step by step argument for
you to even consider whether it was true or false, yet you endorsed
his unposted attempt. That really was not fair to me, since I had a
publishable proof step by step both shortform and longform and
Davidson
had nothing but a rude mouth and irrelevant arguments.


After you endorsed Davidson, then Davidson quickly rushed to post this
below, for even
Davidson realized he needed to show something step by step, for which
you had already endorsed as true :
That is like saying how great supper was at a restaurant, LWalk, when
you never even visited
the restaurant.

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

Because, L. Walker accepted and endorsed the above, not realizing that
there
was no contradiction to 2), since W+1 was prime itself. Davidson is
pretending that
W+1 is neither prime nor composite forgetting that W+1 is divisible by
W+1 and by 1.
So he has no contradiction, yet you endorsed that argument LWalk.

So, L. Walker, you still need to say that the above is a fake proof.
Or else, readers
will think you still accepted the above.

Keep in mind also, that I never asked you to get involved with Iain
Davidson at all, I was happily going on my own business with Davidson
killfiled for I had him
(killfiled), and then you came along forcing me to have to repair the
damage Davidson and you
caused.

Forget the zero sum and other nuisance contraptions. Science is only
about the truth, and everything else is side show antics. Maybe you
keep the wrong company in sci.math that
gets into these troubles.

So, L. Walker, please unfool yourself. Please state that you now see
the flaw of Davidson's above for that W+1 is a prime number and hence
there is no contradiction to 2).

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
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: John Ramsden shines Re: grounds for dismissal of Julia F. Knight and Chandler Davis as math journal editors #5.12 Correcting Math
Next: New Generation Lossless Data Representations