Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website

From: Tim Peters (tim.one_at_comcast.net)
Date: 08/13/04 

Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 00:57:45 -0400

[Chris Menzel, to Peter Olcott]
> ...
> There is no more point to "studying" your confused ramblings than
> there would be if you were claiming to have proved there are only
> finitely many primes.

But there are only finitely many primes. I've heard it claimed that if I
compute the product of my list of all the primes there are, and add 1, then
the result must be divisible by a prime not in my list. But primes can
simply refrain from returning a result when they know they're being
multiplied, so that proof has been correctly refuted.

dear-lord-it's-contagious-ly y'rs - tim

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution vs Abiogenesis
    ... Thats like my math pro "claiming" that, I don't need to know about ... primes. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Sieve distinction, prime counting
    ... > Math people are used to getting away with this kind of behavior. ... Where does it make use of a table of primes? ... I thought you were still claiming that only ... "bullshit", I was wrong about the reason why it is "bullshit" but ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website
    ... >> there would be if you were claiming to have proved there are only ... > But there are only finitely many primes. ... Hopefully Olcott will take notice of this profound result and schlep his ... crusade over to sci.math... ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Help me understand this proof
    ... Chris Menzel wrote: ... set of primes, there's a countable model M containing elements divisible ... David Marcus ...
    (sci.logic)
Quantcast