Re: Is this proof of infinitely many primes flawed?

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 02:26:19 -0800 (PST), "sttscitrans@xxxxxxxxx"
<sttscitrans@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 29 Jan, 10:11, David C. Ullrich <dullr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 05:20:05 -0800 (PST), "sttscitr...@xxxxxxxxx"





<sttscitr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 28 Jan, 11:56, David C. Ullrich <dullr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:45:44 -0800 (PST), "sttscitr...@xxxxxxxxx"

<sttscitr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 28 Jan, 03:15, W^3 <aderamey.a...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<192daabf-10e1-483f-bab3-df686a539...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

 conrad <con...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Suppose p_1,p_2,...,p_n are all the primes

Let M = (p_1,p_2,...,p_n) + 1

Suppose p_k | M

Clearly p_k | (p_1,p_2,...,p_n)

then p_k | M - (p_1,p_2,...,p_n) = 1

But  p_k > 1 (Contradiction)

Where I do not follow this proof is
if we suppose p_k divides evenly M
then how can we say p_k  divides
evenly (p_1,p_2,...,p_n)?

It has nothing to do with assuming p_k | M. It is simply obvious, as
obvious as saying 5 | 3*5*7.

You are missing the point.

No, you are.

No, you haven't understood what the OP was
asking.
Obviously, if p is a prime, it divides the
product of all the primes that are assumed exist.

The OP was puzzled by the statement that
some prime divides M and yet this prime
divides the product of all primes.
He had simply forgotten that if pn
is the last prime, every number greater
than pn, e.g. M must be divisble by at least
one of the primes assumed to exist, say p_k.

If you say so. How you can know that this
is what puzzled him, when it's just the opposite
of what he actually asked, is beyond me.

It seemed unlikely that the OP was just asking why
5 divides 2*3*5.

I didn't make any claims about what it was or was
not "likely" that the OP was asking, just about what
he did in fact ask:

"how can we say p_k  divides evenly (p_1,p_2,...,p_n)?"

There is after all a context.

Yes. The context _seems_ to be that he was confused,
thinking that the answer to his (trivial) question had
something to do with that other assumption, which
it doesn't.

Why does that seem to be the case? Again, because
of what he wrote. The question in context:

"Where I do not follow this proof is
if we suppose p_k divides evenly M
then how can we say p_k  divides
evenly (p_1,p_2,...,p_n)?"

The answer being that the assumption is irrelevant.

But only the OP can clarify that.

Or one who reads what he wrote, bearing in mind
that there's no such thing as a question so stupid
that nobody's ever going to ask it.



David C. Ullrich

"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is this proof of infinitely many primes flawed?
    ... obvious as saying 5 | 3*5*7. ... Obviously, if p is a prime, it divides the ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Is this proof of infinitely many primes flawed?
    ... if we suppose p_k divides evenly M ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. ... That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to." ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Formal proof that sqrt(2) is irrational?
    ... So what's this theorem's formal proof, ... Use the rational roots theorem. ... where p divides a_0 and q divides a_n. ... fact of irrationality. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Change of gravity in a black hole
    ... When expressing a question, there ... is always a context that relates to the question. ... There must be a prime p which divides b and which does not divide a ... The square of a can be factorized as the product of the primes into ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Confused by symbol in equation
    ... It depends on the context, but it most likely means "divides". ... Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling. ...
    (sci.math.symbolic)