Quote:
Originally Posted by jzakiya
Let me guess, you've never read my paper(s), or seen my video. Right?
You have no idea what I've presented as the mathematical basis of my "proof". Right?
If your life depended it on it you couldn't accurately state what I say constitutes my proof. Right?

Wrong. I read that so called paper after mart_r post (which made me curious), and I bet my life that the so called proof is bullshit. Ban is well deserved.
You have there a lot of reasoning mistakes, not counting "obvious" (you like this word so much) notation mistakes. For example, just in the very beginning of the paper, in formula (2) you define primorial as product of all the primes smaller than n, which is correct,[tex]
p_n# =\product{p_i} = 2\cdot 3\cdot 5\cdot ...\cdot p_n\ [\tex]
(2) but then, immediately after, in (3), you make a mess of it: [tex]
(p_n−1)# \product{(p_i−1)} = (2−1)\cdot(3−1)\cdot(5−1)\cdot...\cdot(pn−1)\ [\tex](3). Nope, [tex]
(p_n−1)#[\tex]
should be just the product of primes to [tex]
n1[\tex]
and that's all. Your mess of notation is very confusing, and it shows disrespect for the reader, who has to guess what you mean. Also, in your "infinitude" of primes chapter, you show the reason only for the first two primorials, where the things go very nice, but you can not extend that "forever", just try it for the third and see how (and why) it fails.
Generally, the "paper" is a big mixture of very elementary things (probably it give credibility if you affirm well known things ) and bullshit.
You affirm in your CV that you teach math, I really feel sorry for the money your students pay to you, the money are wasted. Honestly.