| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: #539 the proof of the Infinitude of Twin Primes in AP-adics |
 |
|
Tues, Feb 19 2008 9:54 pm was the last time I remember posting to this
book, but since my recent
appearance in a South Dakota newspaper that asks the question: Is
Archimedes Plutonium a genius.
Well, that answer is easy to answer.
I wrote a book correcting about 30 professors of mathematics who each
wrote a book wherein they
gave their own proof of the Euclid Infinitude of Primes and G. H.
Hardy was amoung that group
and there were other prominent mathematicians in that group. And Hardy
is considered a genius
but if Hardy could not deliver a valid Euclid Infinitude of Primes
proof and it took Archimedes Plutonium
to show where those 30 professors of math made a big mistake. And if
we consider Hardy
a genius, then we have to say that Archimedes Plutonium must be a
genius.
What Archimedes Plutonium did to correct Euclid Infinitude of Primes
proof is show that in the
indirect method of reductio ad absurdum, that you have to fall back on
an earlier step in the proof
which is the definition of prime and by doing so, this referring back
to the earlier step, forces the
prover to have to say that the new number formed of multiply the lot
and add 1, is necessarily and
irrefutably a new prime. The mistake that Hardy and 30 math professors
make is they mix the
direct method with the indirect method and end up with a confused
invalid proof argument.
Now I bring that up not because I want to arrogantly fluant that I am
a genius and easily verified
by having corrected mathematics of its Euclid Infinitude of Primes
Proof, but also because, in
writing this post, I have discovered some new information on the
Infinitude of Twin Primes and
why the Natural Numbers as "finite integers" is a fake set of numbers.
As fake as the idea that
fire breathing dragons exist.
The real Counting Numbers are not finite specimens. The real Counting
Numbers are each a
infinitely long string. The number 1 is not 1 but is really an
infinite string ....000000001. We ignore
all those zeroes to the left, not because they are meaningless but
because we are not advanced
in mind and intelligence to realize every number is "infinite". And
for mathematics of the past, they
thought a rule that only finite strings could be numbers and could be
well-defined were simply deluded
people.
The number ....99999999 although infinite is a Natural Number the same
as the numbers 1,2,3 etc.
I called this set of all numbers ....000000, then ....000001,
then .....0000002, all the way up to and
including .....999999999 the AP-adics but they are also the Counting
Numbers and the Natural-Numbers.
So what we teach in mathematics at present and in the past, those
numbers which we called the
Counting Numbers or Natural Numbers as "finite integers" were a bag of
lies. They were useful, mighty
useful, but because they were a bag of tricks and lies, they started
to cause the buildup of a huge
mountain of unsolved problems in mathematics and to name a few--
Riemann Hypothesis, Fermat's
Last Theorem, and one which I am going to talk about now-- Infinitude
of Twin Primes Conjecture.
Euclid in his famous proof of the Infinitude of Primes did a elegant
proof and as become a gem of
mathematics and the intellectual heritage of the world. This proof is
often called one of the top ten
mathematical gems.
TWIN PRIMES INFINITUDE CONJECTURE: there are some primes called twin
primes since they are
separated by a metric of 2, such as 3 and 5 and such as 11 and 13. But
are there an infinitude of these
Twin Primes?
If mathematics with its definition of Natural Numbers as "finite
integers" was not a lie and a sack of
ill-defined contraptions, the question is, why so easy of a proof for
all the primes-- 2,3,5,7, 11, 13,....
Why so easy of a proof, yet when you ask for the infinitude of twin
primes, why nearly impossible
to find a proof?
Now let us stand back for a moment and review all of mathematics and
its proofs. Whenever in mathematics
you have a "true and well defined area" and if you provide a proof of
something such as infinitude of
some objects, if that area is really well defined, then by logic, a
subclass of that infinitude of objects
should be easier to prove than the original infinitude of that object.
In the AP-adics, we use and endorse the Euclid Infinitude of Primes
proof. We simply recognize
that we have the primes not as 2, 3, 5, 7, .... but as ....
000002, .....00003, ....000005, etc
But we also have these strange looking primes ......13121110987654321
So in AP-adics we endorse the Euclid Infinitude of Primes Proof, and
now is requested to prove the
Infinitude of Twin Primes. Simple for us since all we do is take the
Twin Primes of 11 and 13 and
we construct a proof that Twin Primes are infinite as such:
......131211109876543211 with ....131211109876543213
now the next pair of twin primes is that we eliminate the "2" that
precedes the 11 and 13 as such:
......13121110987654311 with .....13121110987654313
now we continue to eliminate the "3" before the 11 and the 13 to
construct our next pair of twin primes
and we do this construction knowing it is endless and thus the Twin
Primes are Infinite.
So in mathematics, when you have a true set of numbers that are well
defined and not a phony bag
of lies, once you have proven the "overarching theorem of infinitude
of primes" the infinitude of a lesser
class of primes should be as easy as the AP-adics proof of the
Infinitude of Twin Primes.
But with the phony bag of lies that Natural Numbers are "finite
integers" it is impossible to prove
Infinitude of Twin Primes. Yes impossible, and let me show why it is
impossible by using the above
construction.
In order to prove Infinitude of Twin Primes as the phony set of
"finite integers" all that one needs to
do is show that just one single pair in each category above is a Twin
Prime Pair.
In the above I show two categories of these two:
......131211109876543211 with ....131211109876543213
......13121110987654311 with .....13121110987654313
Now, Infinitude of Twin Primes proof in the old finite integer scheme
requires a simply thing. It only
requires that we find a set of twin primes in each category.
This is the first category:
......131211109876543211 with ....131211109876543213
So we ask, is 211 and 213 twin primes in "finite integers" if not,
then we ask is 3211 and 3213
twin primes in "finite integers".
Simple and easy. To prove Infinitude of Twin Primes in "finite
integers" requires us to simply find
a pair of twin primes in each category of the AP-adics.
Mind you, the AP-adics proved Twin Primes are infinite in "infinite
integers", but why in the world
cannot the "finite integers" come forth with a proof?
The answer is obvious. Noone in mathematics can ever prove Infinitude
of Twin Primes simply because
they are a phony and liaring set of ill-defined numbers. There is no
"finite integer" for all numbers extend
infinitely long.
The reason the AP-adics can swallow up and validate Euclids method of
proving Infinitude of Primes
and then turn around and in 5 minutes prove the Infinitude of Twin
Primes is because Natural Numbers
are all "infinite integers". They are not a bag of phony lies of Loch
Ness or Bigfoot or fire breathing dragons.
Now some may pop their stupid heads up and say that Twin Primes is a
Godel undecidable conjecture.
These are only more stupid people who would propose that, because
Godel's undecidable proof was
based on another falsehood found in mathematics of the Cantor
Diagonal, but that is too long of a story
here.
The basic facts are these: It is reasonable to expect that if you can
build a car engine, you can build
smaller engines to run smaller things like lawnmowers. If you can
prove the infinitude of regular primes,
then mathematics should easily prove a smaller subclass of primes
whether they are infinite or not.
Since mathematics proves infinitude of regular primes via Euclid
method and since AP-adics easily
proves infinitude of twin primes, would tell a commonsense person that
the trouble with this picture
is that modern mathematics is under a false and delusion that "finite
integers" holds any reality.
Now recently in a newspaper article on Archimedes Plutonium in the
South Dakota newspaper which
showed me on the front cover and had a full page story on me has Jesse
Hughes commenting about
me saying this:
--- quoting a biased Argus Leader story over Archimedes Plutonium ---
Jesse Hughes, an
adjunct professor of philosophy at Bennett College and Salem State
College in Arlington, Mass., in an e-mail.
Hughes, a long-time contributor to many of the same Usenet newsgroup
that Plutonium frequents, called Plutonium's theory "mind-bogglingly
silly," and dubbed him the "reigning king of Usenet cranks."
--- end quoting ---
All I have to say about Jesse Hughes is where did he ever correct
Hardy and thirty other
math professors who could not do a valid Euclid Infinitude of Primes
proof? Show me any
post by Hughes where he puts forth some new ideas of mathematics and
where he corrects
the Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof.
I would dare say that Hughes, in all of his life as a philosophy
professor was unable to even
deliver a valid proof of Euclid Infinitude of Primes, and people like
this become so sour and bitter
towards other people who do have new ideas that Hughes lashes out at
them and calls them
"cranks".
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Active Member
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:20 pm Post subject: Re: #539 the proof of the Infinitude of Twin Primes in AP-ad |
|
|
#539 "Archimedes Plutonium" anagram -
"Demonic Mailer, Shut Up!"
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ba8362b-c053-4d03-98d8-5f31f889e320@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Tues, Feb 19 2008 9:54 pm was the last time I remember anything |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:03 am Post subject: Re: #539 the proof of the Infinitude of Twin Primes in AP-ad |
|
|
On 1 jul, 18:20, plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
Tues, Feb 19 2008 9:54 pm was the last time I remember posting to this
book, but since my recent
appearance in a South Dakota newspaper that asks the question: Is
Archimedes Plutonium a genius.
Well, that answer is easy to answer.
I wrote a book correcting about 30 professors of mathematics who each
wrote a book wherein they
gave their own proof of the Euclid Infinitude of Primes and G. H.
Hardy was amoung that group
and there were other prominent mathematicians in that group. And Hardy
is considered a genius
but if Hardy could not deliver a valid Euclid Infinitude of Primes
proof and it took Archimedes Plutonium
to show where those 30 professors of math made a big mistake. And if
we consider Hardy
a genius, then we have to say that Archimedes Plutonium must be a
genius.
What Archimedes Plutonium did to correct Euclid Infinitude of Primes
proof is show that in the
indirect method of reductio ad absurdum, that you have to fall back on
an earlier step in the proof
which is the definition of prime and by doing so, this referring back
to the earlier step, forces the
prover to have to say that the new number formed of multiply the lot
and add 1, is necessarily and
irrefutably a new prime. The mistake that Hardy and 30 math professors
make is they mix the
direct method with the indirect method and end up with a confused
invalid proof argument.
Now I bring that up not because I want to arrogantly fluant that I am
a genius and easily verified
by having corrected mathematics of its Euclid Infinitude of Primes
Proof, but also because, in
writing this post, I have discovered some new information on the
Infinitude of Twin Primes and
why the Natural Numbers as "finite integers" is a fake set of numbers.
As fake as the idea that
fire breathing dragons exist.
The real Counting Numbers are not finite specimens. The real Counting
Numbers are each a
infinitely long string. The number 1 is not 1 but is really an
infinite string ....000000001. We ignore
all those zeroes to the left, not because they are meaningless but
because we are not advanced
in mind and intelligence to realize every number is "infinite". And
for mathematics of the past, they
thought a rule that only finite strings could be numbers and could be
well-defined were simply deluded
people.
The number ....99999999 although infinite is a Natural Number the same
as the numbers 1,2,3 etc.
I called this set of all numbers ....000000, then ....000001,
then .....0000002, all the way up to and
including .....999999999 the AP-adics but they are also the Counting
Numbers and the Natural-Numbers.
So what we teach in mathematics at present and in the past, those
numbers which we called the
Counting Numbers or Natural Numbers as "finite integers" were a bag of
lies. They were useful, mighty
useful, but because they were a bag of tricks and lies, they started
to cause the buildup of a huge
mountain of unsolved problems in mathematics and to name a few--
Riemann Hypothesis, Fermat's
Last Theorem, and one which I am going to talk about now-- Infinitude
of Twin Primes Conjecture.
Euclid in his famous proof of the Infinitude of Primes did a elegant
proof and as become a gem of
mathematics and the intellectual heritage of the world. This proof is
often called one of the top ten
mathematical gems.
TWIN PRIMES INFINITUDE CONJECTURE: there are some primes called twin
primes since they are
separated by a metric of 2, such as 3 and 5 and such as 11 and 13. But
are there an infinitude of these
Twin Primes?
If mathematics with its definition of Natural Numbers as "finite
integers" was not a lie and a sack of
ill-defined contraptions, the question is, why so easy of a proof for
all the primes-- 2,3,5,7, 11, 13,....
Why so easy of a proof, yet when you ask for the infinitude of twin
primes, why nearly impossible
to find a proof?
Now let us stand back for a moment and review all of mathematics and
its proofs. Whenever in mathematics
you have a "true and well defined area" and if you provide a proof of
something such as infinitude of
some objects, if that area is really well defined, then by logic, a
subclass of that infinitude of objects
should be easier to prove than the original infinitude of that object.
In the AP-adics, we use and endorse the Euclid Infinitude of Primes
proof. We simply recognize
that we have the primes not as 2, 3, 5, 7, .... but as ....
000002, .....00003, ....000005, etc
But we also have these strange looking primes ......13121110987654321
So in AP-adics we endorse the Euclid Infinitude of Primes Proof, and
now is requested to prove the
Infinitude of Twin Primes. Simple for us since all we do is take the
Twin Primes of 11 and 13 and
we construct a proof that Twin Primes are infinite as such:
.....131211109876543211 with ....131211109876543213
now the next pair of twin primes is that we eliminate the "2" that
precedes the 11 and 13 as such:
.....13121110987654311 with .....13121110987654313
now we continue to eliminate the "3" before the 11 and the 13 to
construct our next pair of twin primes
and we do this construction knowing it is endless and thus the Twin
Primes are Infinite.
So in mathematics, when you have a true set of numbers that are well
defined and not a phony bag
of lies, once you have proven the "overarching theorem of infinitude
of primes" the infinitude of a lesser
class of primes should be as easy as the AP-adics proof of the
Infinitude of Twin Primes.
But with the phony bag of lies that Natural Numbers are "finite
integers" it is impossible to prove
Infinitude of Twin Primes. Yes impossible, and let me show why it is
impossible by using the above
construction.
In order to prove Infinitude of Twin Primes as the phony set of
"finite integers" all that one needs to
do is show that just one single pair in each category above is a Twin
Prime Pair.
In the above I show two categories of these two:
.....131211109876543211 with ....131211109876543213
.....13121110987654311 with .....13121110987654313
Now, Infinitude of Twin Primes proof in the old finite integer scheme
requires a simply thing. It only
requires that we find a set of twin primes in each category.
This is the first category:
.....131211109876543211 with ....131211109876543213
So we ask, is 211 and 213 twin primes in "finite integers" if not,
then we ask is 3211 and 3213
twin primes in "finite integers".
Simple and easy. To prove Infinitude of Twin Primes in "finite
integers" requires us to simply find
a pair of twin primes in each category of the AP-adics.
Mind you, the AP-adics proved Twin Primes are infinite in "infinite
integers", but why in the world
cannot the "finite integers" come forth with a proof?
The answer is obvious. Noone in mathematics can ever prove Infinitude
of Twin Primes simply because
they are a phony and liaring set of ill-defined numbers. There is no
"finite integer" for all numbers extend
infinitely long.
The reason the AP-adics can swallow up and validate Euclids method of
proving Infinitude of Primes
and then turn around and in 5 minutes prove the Infinitude of Twin
Primes is because Natural Numbers
are all "infinite integers". They are not a bag of phony lies of Loch
Ness or Bigfoot or fire breathing dragons.
Now some may pop their stupid heads up and say that Twin Primes is a
Godel undecidable conjecture.
These are only more stupid people who would propose that, because
Godel's undecidable proof was
based on another falsehood found in mathematics of the Cantor
Diagonal, but that is too long of a story
here.
The basic facts are these: It is reasonable to expect that if you can
build a car engine, you can build
smaller engines to run smaller things like lawnmowers. If you can
prove the infinitude of regular primes,
then mathematics should easily prove a smaller subclass of primes
whether they are infinite or not.
Since mathematics proves infinitude of regular primes via Euclid
method and since AP-adics easily
proves infinitude of twin primes, would tell a commonsense person that
the trouble with this picture
is that modern mathematics is under a false and delusion that "finite
integers" holds any reality.
Now recently in a newspaper article on Archimedes Plutonium in the
South Dakota newspaper which
showed me on the front cover and had a full page story on me has Jesse
Hughes commenting about
me saying this:
--- quoting a biased Argus Leader story over Archimedes Plutonium ---
Jesse Hughes, an
adjunct professor of philosophy at Bennett College and Salem State
College in Arlington, Mass., in an e-mail.
Hughes, a long-time contributor to many of the same Usenet newsgroup
that Plutonium frequents, called Plutonium's theory "mind-bogglingly
silly," and dubbed him the "reigning king of Usenet cranks."
--- end quoting ---
All I have to say about Jesse Hughes is where did he ever correct
Hardy and thirty other
math professors who could not do a valid Euclid Infinitude of Primes
proof? Show me any
post by Hughes where he puts forth some new ideas of mathematics and
where he corrects
the Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof.
I would dare say that Hughes, in all of his life as a philosophy
professor was unable to even
deliver a valid proof of Euclid Infinitude of Primes, and people like
this become so sour and bitter
towards other people who do have new ideas that Hughes lashes out at
them and calls them
"cranks".
Archimedes Plutoniumwww.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
I have had a lot of fun reading all this stuff. I have also read
http://groups.google.com.by/group/sci.logic/msg/a6235d5653d6af68
I think that what Hardy had in mind is that since natural numbers are
well ordered, to prove the infinitude of primes you just need to prove
that the subset of all prime numbers greater than any given prime is
not empty. This and the reductio ad absurdum proof are both based on
the construction of the number 'product of primes plus one', so it is
normal to somehow 'confuse' them, being each of them correct in their
own.
Mathematicians do not normally write formal proofs but instead they
sort of describe them; they tell us how we should be able to write a
formal proof. This being understood, it is normal that whenever we
talk about things we know and understand well we make mistakes in our
discourse which, from a pragmatic point of view, can perfectly be
ignored without any damage. So giving any importance to that kind of
mistakes doesn't make anyone any sort of genius.
By the way, why should these strange looking ......13121110987654321
be a prime?
Cheers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:55 pm Post subject: #544 the Jesse Hughes syndrome in education ; new textbook: |
|
|
malc...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
I have had a lot of fun reading all this stuff. I have also read
http://groups.google.com.by/group/sci.logic/msg/a6235d5653d6af68
I think that what Hardy had in mind is that since natural numbers are
well ordered, to prove the infinitude of primes you just need to prove
that the subset of all prime numbers greater than any given prime is
not empty. This and the reductio ad absurdum proof are both based on
the construction of the number 'product of primes plus one', so it is
normal to somehow 'confuse' them, being each of them correct in their
own.
Mathematicians do not normally write formal proofs but instead they
sort of describe them; they tell us how we should be able to write a
formal proof. This being understood, it is normal that whenever we
talk about things we know and understand well we make mistakes in our
discourse which, from a pragmatic point of view, can perfectly be
ignored without any damage. So giving any importance to that kind of
mistakes doesn't make anyone any sort of genius.
By the way, why should these strange looking ......13121110987654321
be a prime?
Cheers.
|
You have a touch of what I call the Jesse Hughes syndrome as
illustrated in the
Argus Leader news story of Archimedes Plutonium. This is a syndrome of
where
you hate someone and the hatred then never allows you to acknowledge
the
achievements of the person you hate. You belittle, you ignore, you
dismiss,
you attack the person, and no matter how high of a achievement, how
important
the achievement, you simply can never acknowledge it.
And I believe that such a condition are the signs that the person is
no longer fit to
be in education or the science.
Imagine a professor on campus who hates a sports person, and who in
the weekend
won the game for the hometeam. And the professor failing to
acknowledge the achievements
of the sports person.
Perhaps the prime reason we have "educators" is for the moment in
which they can congratulate
those who have achieved something academically or physically. And when
we see educators
full of hatred who cannot for a single moment acknowledge the
achievement of others, is time,
I believe for them to be pushed out of education since they do more
harm than what little good.
I have discovered there is a LOGICAL flaw in most renditions of the
Euclid Infinitude of Primes Proof.
I have written a book and published it on the Internet showing where
many textbooks on math
give an invalid proof of Infinitude of Primes. Hardy's book A
Mathematicians Apology is one amoung
30 that fails to give a valid proof of Infinitude of Primes.
It is a "big mistake". And not as Malcolm wants to dream is a minor
mistake. For Malcolm is acting
more like Jesse Hughes, in his hatred of Archimedes Plutonium, that
you deny me of my achievement.
If you taught a group of Grade School Children how to add and these
children learn it for the first time
and then you quized them with a sum such as this:
Add this column:
3
5
10
9
____
And 30 Grade school children handed in their answer and 28 of them
summed to 18
while two of the children summed to 27.
Then both Malcolm and Jesse Hughes should congratulate those two who
had the correct
answer of 27. And even if they hated the guts of those two, should
still congratulate them.
Likewise.
What I should as a fundamental mistake of logic reasoning performed by
a group of 30
math professors which included Montgomery in a Number theory textbook
and include
Hardy in A Mathematicians Apology and included Conway and many other
math professors
is akin to adding the above list and coming up with 18.
The mistake that Hardy makes as well as thirty other professors of
mathematics is that
they commit themselves to a Reductio Ad Absurdum proof, but fail to
apply the "definition
of prime" that forces them to recognize that the new number has to be
prime also. That if
3 and 5 were the only primes that exist, then 16 is also a prime
number in this universe of
all primes. That is the mistake made by nearly everyone who has
written a Euclid Infinitude of
Primes proof in a book.
It is a big mistake, just as the Grade Schoolers added 10 as if it
were a 1 and arrived at 18
instead of the correct answer of 27.
So for Malcolm and Jesse Hughes to continue to belittle and ignore and
lambast my accomplishements
to never accept my achievements, reflects more on your hatemongering.
If any handful of pipsqueck professors of mathematics had corrected
Hardy and a group of 30
professors of their tainted and invalid attempt of Euclid Infinitude
of Primes, they would have been
touted around the world as the new genius. But because it was
Archimedes Plutonium who
accomplished this, the world only rises up to spew more hatred and
suppression of the man
who discovered the Atom Totality theory.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
george
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:39 pm Post subject: Re: #544 the Jesse Hughes syndrome in education ; new textbo |
|
|
On Jul 2, 1:55 pm, plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
malc...@gmail.com wrote:
I have had a lot of fun reading all this stuff. I have also read
http://groups.google.com.by/group/sci.logic/msg/a6235d5653d6af68
I think that what Hardy had in mind is that since natural numbers are
well ordered, to prove the infinitude of primes you just need to prove
that the subset of all prime numbers greater than any given prime is
not empty. This and the reductio ad absurdum proof are both based on
the construction of the number 'product of primes plus one', so it is
normal to somehow 'confuse' them, being each of them correct in their
own.
Mathematicians do not normally write formal proofs but instead they
sort of describe them; they tell us how we should be able to write a
formal proof. This being understood, it is normal that whenever we
talk about things we know and understand well we make mistakes in our
discourse which, from a pragmatic point of view, can perfectly be
ignored without any damage. So giving any importance to that kind of
mistakes doesn't make anyone any sort of genius.
By the way, why should these strange looking ......13121110987654321
be a prime?
Cheers.
You have a touch of what I call the Jesse Hughes syndrome as
illustrated in the
Argus Leader news story of Archimedes Plutonium. This is a syndrome of
where
you hate someone and the hatred then never allows you to acknowledge
the
achievements of the person you hate. You belittle, you ignore, you
dismiss,
you attack the person, and no matter how high of a achievement, how
important
the achievement, you simply can never acknowledge it.
And I believe that such a condition are the signs that the person is
no longer fit to
be in education or the science.
Imagine a professor on campus who hates a sports person, and who in
the weekend
won the game for the hometeam. And the professor failing to
acknowledge the achievements
of the sports person.
Perhaps the prime reason we have "educators" is for the moment in
which they can congratulate
those who have achieved something academically or physically. And when
we see educators
full of hatred who cannot for a single moment acknowledge the
achievement of others, is time,
I believe for them to be pushed out of education since they do more
harm than what little good.
I have discovered there is a LOGICAL flaw in most renditions of the
Euclid Infinitude of Primes Proof.
I have written a book and published it on the Internet showing where
many textbooks on math
give an invalid proof of Infinitude of Primes. Hardy's book A
Mathematicians Apology is one amoung
30 that fails to give a valid proof of Infinitude of Primes.
It is a "big mistake". And not as Malcolm wants to dream is a minor
mistake. For Malcolm is acting
more like Jesse Hughes, in his hatred of Archimedes Plutonium, that
you deny me of my achievement.
If you taught a group of Grade School Children how to add and these
children learn it for the first time
and then you quized them with a sum such as this:
Add this column:
3
5
10
9
____
And 30 Grade school children handed in their answer and 28 of them
summed to 18
while two of the children summed to 27.
Then both Malcolm and Jesse Hughes should congratulate those two who
had the correct
answer of 27. And even if they hated the guts of those two, should
still congratulate them.
Likewise.
What I should as a fundamental mistake of logic reasoning performed by
a group of 30
math professors which included Montgomery in a Number theory textbook
and include
Hardy in A Mathematicians Apology and included Conway and many other
math professors
is akin to adding the above list and coming up with 18.
The mistake that Hardy makes as well as thirty other professors of
mathematics is that
they commit themselves to a Reductio Ad Absurdum proof, but fail to
apply the "definition
of prime" that forces them to recognize that the new number has to be
prime also. That if
3 and 5 were the only primes that exist, then 16 is also a prime
number in this universe of
all primes. That is the mistake made by nearly everyone who has
written a Euclid Infinitude of
Primes proof in a book.
It is a big mistake, just as the Grade Schoolers added 10 as if it
were a 1 and arrived at 18
instead of the correct answer of 27.
So for Malcolm and Jesse Hughes to continue to belittle and ignore and
lambast my accomplishements
to never accept my achievements, reflects more on your hatemongering.
If any handful of pipsqueck professors of mathematics had corrected
Hardy and a group of 30
professors of their tainted and invalid attempt of Euclid Infinitude
of Primes, they would have been
touted around the world as the new genius. But because it was
Archimedes Plutonium who
accomplished this, the world only rises up to spew more hatred and
suppression of the man
who discovered the Atom Totality theory.
Archimedes Plutoniumwww.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:42 am Post subject: Re: #544 the Jesse Hughes syndrome in education ; new textbo |
|
|
On 2 jul, 20:55, plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
malc...@gmail.com wrote:
I have had a lot of fun reading all this stuff. I have also read
http://groups.google.com.by/group/sci.logic/msg/a6235d5653d6af68
I think that what Hardy had in mind is that since natural numbers are
well ordered, to prove the infinitude of primes you just need to prove
that the subset of all prime numbers greater than any given prime is
not empty. This and the reductio ad absurdum proof are both based on
the construction of the number 'product of primes plus one', so it is
normal to somehow 'confuse' them, being each of them correct in their
own.
Mathematicians do not normally write formal proofs but instead they
sort of describe them; they tell us how we should be able to write a
formal proof. This being understood, it is normal that whenever we
talk about things we know and understand well we make mistakes in our
discourse which, from a pragmatic point of view, can perfectly be
ignored without any damage. So giving any importance to that kind of
mistakes doesn't make anyone any sort of genius.
By the way, why should these strange looking ......13121110987654321
be a prime?
Cheers.
You have a touch of what I call the Jesse Hughes syndrome as
illustrated in the
Argus Leader news story of Archimedes Plutonium. This is a syndrome of
where
you hate someone and the hatred then never allows you to acknowledge
the
achievements of the person you hate. You belittle, you ignore, you
dismiss,
you attack the person, and no matter how high of a achievement, how
important
the achievement, you simply can never acknowledge it.
And I believe that such a condition are the signs that the person is
no longer fit to
be in education or the science.
Imagine a professor on campus who hates a sports person, and who in
the weekend
won the game for the hometeam. And the professor failing to
acknowledge the achievements
of the sports person.
Perhaps the prime reason we have "educators" is for the moment in
which they can congratulate
those who have achieved something academically or physically. And when
we see educators
full of hatred who cannot for a single moment acknowledge the
achievement of others, is time,
I believe for them to be pushed out of education since they do more
harm than what little good.
I have discovered there is a LOGICAL flaw in most renditions of the
Euclid Infinitude of Primes Proof.
I have written a book and published it on the Internet showing where
many textbooks on math
give an invalid proof of Infinitude of Primes. Hardy's book A
Mathematicians Apology is one amoung
30 that fails to give a valid proof of Infinitude of Primes.
It is a "big mistake". And not as Malcolm wants to dream is a minor
mistake. For Malcolm is acting
more like Jesse Hughes, in his hatred of Archimedes Plutonium, that
you deny me of my achievement.
If you taught a group of Grade School Children how to add and these
children learn it for the first time
and then you quized them with a sum such as this:
Add this column:
3
5
10
9
____
And 30 Grade school children handed in their answer and 28 of them
summed to 18
while two of the children summed to 27.
Then both Malcolm and Jesse Hughes should congratulate those two who
had the correct
answer of 27. And even if they hated the guts of those two, should
still congratulate them.
Likewise.
What I should as a fundamental mistake of logic reasoning performed by
a group of 30
math professors which included Montgomery in a Number theory textbook
and include
Hardy in A Mathematicians Apology and included Conway and many other
math professors
is akin to adding the above list and coming up with 18.
The mistake that Hardy makes as well as thirty other professors of
mathematics is that
they commit themselves to a Reductio Ad Absurdum proof, but fail to
apply the "definition
of prime" that forces them to recognize that the new number has to be
prime also. That if
3 and 5 were the only primes that exist, then 16 is also a prime
number in this universe of
all primes. That is the mistake made by nearly everyone who has
written a Euclid Infinitude of
Primes proof in a book.
It is a big mistake, just as the Grade Schoolers added 10 as if it
were a 1 and arrived at 18
instead of the correct answer of 27.
So for Malcolm and Jesse Hughes to continue to belittle and ignore and
lambast my accomplishements
to never accept my achievements, reflects more on your hatemongering.
If any handful of pipsqueck professors of mathematics had corrected
Hardy and a group of 30
professors of their tainted and invalid attempt of Euclid Infinitude
of Primes, they would have been
touted around the world as the new genius. But because it was
Archimedes Plutonium who
accomplished this, the world only rises up to spew more hatred and
suppression of the man
who discovered the Atom Totality theory.
Archimedes Plutoniumwww.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies- Ocultar texto de la cita -
- Mostrar texto de la cita -
|
Just to put things in order:
I do not hate anyone. I just noted that in normal speech such kind of
mistakes are common and that it is also normal not to pay much
attention on them. Certainly one would expect any competent person in
any field to be able to grasp this kind of mistakes instantly.
However, as you have come to realize, this simply doesn't happen.
I think that the matter on how horrible the mistake is, is a bit
subjective. For me it is a curiosity, and I believe that it is due to
a confusion of two very similar proofs. I do not think any of those
mathematicians, Hardy included, would not have corrected their proofs
as soon as anyone would have made them note that.
I am sorry that you have felt my discussion as an attack.
The question about the primeness of the strange looking ......
13121110987654321 was serious. Is there anything similar to the
fundamental theorem of arithmetic for your AP-adics?
Cheers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:13 pm Post subject: Re: #539 the pr etc |
|
|
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
Tues, Feb 19 2008 9:54 pm was the last time I remember posting to this
book, but since my recent
appearance in a South Dakota newspaper that asks the question: Is
Archimedes Plutonium a genius.
Well, that answer is easy to answer.
I wrote a book correcting about 30 professors of mathematics who each
wrote a book wherein they
gave their own proof of the Euclid Infinitude of Primes and G. H.
Hardy was amoung that group
and there were other prominent mathematicians in that group. And Hardy
is considered a genius
but if Hardy could not deliver a valid Euclid Infinitude of Primes
proof and it took Archimedes Plutonium
to show where those 30 professors of math made a big mistake. And if
we consider Hardy
a genius, then we have to say that Archimedes Plutonium must be a
genius.
What Archimedes Plutonium did to correct Euclid Infinitude of Primes
proof is show that in the
indirect method of reductio ad absurdum, that you have to fall back on
an earlier step in the proof
which is the definition of prime and by doing so, this referring back
to the earlier step, forces the
prover to have to say that the new number formed of multiply the lot
and add 1, is necessarily and
irrefutably a new prime. The mistake that Hardy and 30 math professors
make is they mix the
direct method with the indirect method and end up with a confused
invalid proof argument.
Now I bring that up not because I want to arrogantly fluant that I am
a genius and easily verified
by having corrected mathematics of its Euclid Infinitude of Primes
Proof, but also because, in
writing this post, I have discovered some new information on the
Infinitude of Twin Primes and
why the Natural Numbers as "finite integers" is a fake set of numbers.
As fake as the idea that
fire breathing dragons exist.
The real Counting Numbers are not finite specimens. The real Counting
Numbers are each a
infinitely long string. The number 1 is not 1 but is really an
infinite string ....000000001. We ignore
all those zeroes to the left, not because they are meaningless but
because we are not advanced
in mind and intelligence to realize every number is "infinite". And
for mathematics of the past, they
thought a rule that only finite strings could be numbers and could be
well-defined were simply deluded
people.
The number ....99999999 although infinite is a Natural Number the same
as the numbers 1,2,3 etc.
I called this set of all numbers ....000000, then ....000001,
then .....0000002, all the way up to and
including .....999999999 the AP-adics but they are also the Counting
Numbers and the Natural-Numbers.
So what we teach in mathematics at present and in the past, those
numbers which we called the
Counting Numbers or Natural Numbers as "finite integers" were a bag of
lies. They were useful, mighty
useful, but because they were a bag of tricks and lies, they started
to cause the buildup of a huge
mountain of unsolved problems in mathematics and to name a few--
Riemann Hypothesis, Fermat's
Last Theorem, and one which I am going to talk about now-- Infinitude
of Twin Primes Conjecture.
Euclid in his famous proof of the Infinitude of Primes did a elegant
proof and as become a gem of
mathematics and the intellectual heritage of the world. This proof is
often called one of the top ten
mathematical gems.
TWIN PRIMES INFINITUDE CONJECTURE: there are some primes called twin
primes since they are
separated by a metric of 2, such as 3 and 5 and such as 11 and 13. But
are there an infinitude of these
Twin Primes?
If mathematics with its definition of Natural Numbers as "finite
integers" was not a lie and a sack of
ill-defined contraptions, the question is, why so easy of a proof for
all the primes-- 2,3,5,7, 11, 13,....
Why so easy of a proof, yet when you ask for the infinitude of twin
primes, why nearly impossible
to find a proof?
Now let us stand back for a moment and review all of mathematics and
its proofs. Whenever in mathematics
you have a "true and well defined area" and if you provide a proof of
something such as infinitude of
some objects, if that area is really well defined, then by logic, a
subclass of that infinitude of objects
should be easier to prove than the original infinitude of that object.
In the AP-adics, we use and endorse the Euclid Infinitude of Primes
proof. We simply recognize
that we have the primes not as 2, 3, 5, 7, .... but as ....
000002, .....00003, ....000005, etc
But we also have these strange looking primes ......13121110987654321
So in AP-adics we endorse the Euclid Infinitude of Primes Proof, and
now is requested to prove the
Infinitude of Twin Primes. Simple for us since all we do is take the
Twin Primes of 11 and 13 and
we construct a proof that Twin Primes are infinite as such:
.....131211109876543211 with ....131211109876543213
now the next pair of twin primes is that we eliminate the "2" that
precedes the 11 and 13 as such:
.....13121110987654311 with .....13121110987654313
now we continue to eliminate the "3" before the 11 and the 13 to
construct our next pair of twin primes
and we do this construction knowing it is endless and thus the Twin
Primes are Infinite.
So in mathematics, when you have a true set of numbers that are well
defined and not a phony bag
of lies, once you have proven the "overarching theorem of infinitude
of primes" the infinitude of a lesser
class of primes should be as easy as the AP-adics proof of the
Infinitude of Twin Primes.
But with the phony bag of lies that Natural Numbers are "finite
integers" it is impossible to prove
Infinitude of Twin Primes. Yes impossible, and let me show why it is
impossible by using the above
construction.
In order to prove Infinitude of Twin Primes as the phony set of
"finite integers" all that one needs to
do is show that just one single pair in each category above is a Twin
Prime Pair.
In the above I show two categories of these two:
.....131211109876543211 with ....131211109876543213
.....13121110987654311 with .....13121110987654313
Now, Infinitude of Twin Primes proof in the old finite integer scheme
requires a simply thing. It only
requires that we find a set of twin primes in each category.
This is the first category:
.....131211109876543211 with ....131211109876543213
So we ask, is 211 and 213 twin primes in "finite integers" if not,
then we ask is 3211 and 3213
twin primes in "finite integers".
Simple and easy. To prove Infinitude of Twin Primes in "finite
integers" requires us to simply find
a pair of twin primes in each category of the AP-adics.
Mind you, the AP-adics proved Twin Primes are infinite in "infinite
integers", but why in the world
cannot the "finite integers" come forth with a proof?
The answer is obvious. Noone in mathematics can ever prove Infinitude
of Twin Primes simply because
they are a phony and liaring set of ill-defined numbers. There is no
"finite integer" for all numbers extend
infinitely long.
The reason the AP-adics can swallow up and validate Euclids method of
proving Infinitude of Primes
and then turn around and in 5 minutes prove the Infinitude of Twin
Primes is because Natural Numbers
are all "infinite integers". They are not a bag of phony lies of Loch
Ness or Bigfoot or fire breathing dragons.
Now some may pop their stupid heads up and say that Twin Primes is a
Godel undecidable conjecture.
These are only more stupid people who would propose that, because
Godel's undecidable proof was
based on another falsehood found in mathematics of the Cantor
Diagonal, but that is too long of a story
here.
The basic facts are these: It is reasonable to expect that if you can
build a car engine, you can build
smaller engines to run smaller things like lawnmowers. If you can
prove the infinitude of regular primes,
then mathematics should easily prove a smaller subclass of primes
whether they are infinite or not.
Since mathematics proves infinitude of regular primes via Euclid
method and since AP-adics easily
proves infinitude of twin primes, would tell a commonsense person that
the trouble with this picture
is that modern mathematics is under a false and delusion that "finite
integers" holds any reality.
Now recently in a newspaper article on Archimedes Plutonium in the
South Dakota newspaper which
showed me on the front cover and had a full page story on me has Jesse
Hughes commenting about
me saying this:
--- quoting a biased Argus Leader story over Archimedes Plutonium ---
Jesse Hughes, an
adjunct professor of philosophy at Bennett College and Salem State
College in Arlington, Mass., in an e-mail.
Hughes, a long-time contributor to many of the same Usenet newsgroup
that Plutonium frequents, called Plutonium's theory "mind-bogglingly
silly," and dubbed him the "reigning king of Usenet cranks."
--- end quoting ---
All I have to say about Jesse Hughes is where did he ever correct
Hardy and thirty other
math professors who could not do a valid Euclid Infinitude of Primes
proof? Show me any
post by Hughes where he puts forth some new ideas of mathematics and
where he corrects
the Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof.
I would dare say that Hughes, in all of his life as a philosophy
professor was unable to even
deliver a valid proof of Euclid Infinitude of Primes, and people like
this become so sour and bitter
towards other people who do have new ideas that Hughes lashes out at
them and calls them
"cranks".
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
I adjusted your title. It was too long. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
125 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
