Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.

On 18 Mrz., 02:29, "*** T. Winter" <***.Win...@xxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1174140572.700528.281...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

> On 16 Mrz., 16:35, "*** T. Winter" <***.Win...@xxxxxx> wrote:
...
> > He assumed that he could multiply together an assigned multitude of primes.
>
> That need not be assumed. That is obvious. Even for a Greek it was
> possible by continued repetition of products of three factors.

Of course it is obvious.

And if there was only a finite number of primes, one could multiply
all of them. That is as obvious.

> > Not that you could multiply together *all* of them.
>
> He *proved*, by contradiction, that he could not multiply all
> together.

Can you provide me *where* he did prove that?


He said in the headline: The (set of all) prime numbers is more
numerous than any assigned multitude of prime numbers.

The only thing he *did*
prove that there are more primes than any assigned number of primes,
using that you can multiply together an assigned number of primes.

If you forget to assume that you could multiply all together, then the
proof announced by Euclid's headline would not have established. But
obviously Euclid implied that any sensible reader would imply that.

Regards, WM

.

Quantcast