Re: example of C. Heckman giving both Direct and Indirect; #9; 2nd ed; Euclid's Infinitude of Primes Proof Corrected
- From: BD <BD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 09 Sep 2009 18:17:21 -0400
Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
BD <BD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...] few people take me up on delivering two methods for Euclid IP.
Because nobody is foolish enough to engage you in your twisted attempts
to argue that the only correct proofs are those that are syntactically
identical to the (ancient) proofs that you subjectively bless as best.
Esp. since you viciously attack those who are kind enough to attempt
to explain such trivial mathematical matters to you (most esp. BD).
I had asked Bill D. of MIT to offer two methods, but Bill wanted me
to answer some question on Galois Field theory before he was willing
to do Euclid IP.
Lies. In fact BD is well aware that Galois theory is far over AP's head.
So BD never once mentioned the word Galois in any Usenet posts with AP.
What AP refers to are the questions BD posed in [1] to demonstrate that
AP has no clue what he is talking about regarding his "AP-adic numbers".
Such very simple questions have nothing at all to with Galois theory
and nothing at all to do with their prior discussions on Euclid's proof.
AP never answered those questions. Instead he responded with gibberish
about Galois theory, which he regularly reposts to sci.math. These facts
are confirmed by the search [2] which shows that the only prior posts
involving AP and BD containing "Galois" are those posts authored by AP.
Perhaps if AP stopped attacking experts he might receive some replies to
his questions. His current behavior only serves to alienate the people
who have the knowledge to teach him some nontrivial mathematics.
[1] http://google.com/group/sci.math/msg/33be5c787298efe2
[2] http://google.com/groups/search?q=group:*math*+dubuque+plutonium+galois
Yea, yea, yea
The trouble with BD is that he instantly hated with a passion the
first post he read of Archimedes Plutonium and has hated his guts ever
since the 1990s. Hatemongers are almost incurable. And they cannot be
objective about anything they hate.
How did you ever get such a mistaken idea? I do not "hate" anyone here.
In fact I am one of the few professional mathematicians who patiently
replied to your many prior posts on Euclid's proofs. I'm sad to see that
recently your posting style has dramatically changed and that you now are
posting unfounded hateful attacks on mathematicians both dead and alive
in a futile attempt to support you nonsensical claims. I have no tolerance
for such despicable behavior. That is the primary reason why I stopped
responding to your posts.
I congratulated Karl Heuer, Flath, Landau, Stillwell for delivering valid
Euclid IPs. Congratulated them many times. With BD, all he can show is a
hatemongered poem on Archimedes Plutonium.
Euclid's proof that there are infinitely many primes is so trivial that
it is highly unlikely that there exists even a single proof published by
a professional mathematician that is in error. I have probably written
more here than anyone else on the proof and its generalizations. Fyi:
the "poem" is a looney version of "Eleanor Rigby" by The Beatles, was
that not obvious?
You see, what has stung BD in his bonnet is that he is so full of
hate envy that a "genius appears" on the Internet and calls BD's math
ideas into question [...]
TIP If you want to be considered a genius then you should consider
trying to prove some new nontrivial mathematical theorem. Trivially
rehashing one of the oldest simplest proofs known is not a good start.
Nor is attacking and alienating the entire mathematical community.
.
- References:
- Re: example of C. Heckman giving both Direct and Indirect; #9; 2nd ed; Euclid's Infinitude of Primes Proof Corrected
- From: plutonium.archimedes@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: example of C. Heckman giving both Direct and Indirect; #9; 2nd ed; Euclid's Infinitude of Primes Proof Corrected
- Prev by Date: Re: solving systems of equations
- Next by Date: Re: 2 and 2 is 4, right? But did I mean 2+2 or 2*2? Some people could misunderstand the phrase and what if this happens?
- Previous by thread: Re: example of C. Heckman giving both Direct and Indirect; #9; 2nd ed; Euclid's Infinitude of Primes Proof Corrected
- Next by thread: Q: What does it mean when you cut and [paste] text and numbers appear?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
