mersenneforum.org Euclid's proof of the infinite number of primes
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2006-07-13, 14:52   #12
drew

Jun 2005

2·191 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by troels munkner I know of course Euclid's "proof". But I went behind the statement and studied it in more details. Please, look up the attachments which were not in the first thread (unfortunately). If you can read the attachments, you will see a new view of integers. Y.s. troels
As far as I'm concerned Euclid's proof is elegant and complete. There's nothing to expound upon.

Drew

2006-10-23, 06:44   #13
troels munkner

May 2006

29 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jens K Andersen How fortunate I already understood the proof. Otherwise I would be very confused now. The 3 zip files are Word documents. The last 2 are diagrams. A quote from the 1st: "Euclid (and most other mathematicians) have assumed that 2 and 3 are primes. But I claim, that 2 and 3 are not possible primes and should not be considered as “primes”." In the words of Paul: Humpty-Dumpty alert!

You are not very polite in your replies.
It is much worse that you don't understand my message:
"1*2*3*any integer" will never be a prime, if you then add "+1", you will
get some integers, which may be primes, but also a number of prime products.
This was my point, and Euclid's proof is not so simple and elegant as you think.

Y.s.

Troels Munkner

2006-10-23, 09:23   #14
retina
Undefined

"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

2×23×137 Posts

You cannot expect to be taken seriously with contradictions like this:
Quote:
 Originally Posted by troels munkner "1*2*3*any integer" will never be a prime, ...
So you state that any integer will never be prime, and then ...
Quote:
 Originally Posted by troels munkner ... you will get some integers, which may be primes
... some integers may be prime.

If you made your arguments clearer perhaps people would be more polite!

2006-10-23, 11:06   #15
troels munkner

May 2006

29 Posts
Once more

Quote:
 Originally Posted by retina You cannot expect to be taken seriously with contradictions like this:So you state that any integer will never be prime, and then ...... some integers may be prime. If you made your arguments clearer perhaps people would be more polite!
I state that 6* any integer will never be a prime (e.g. 6*5)
and (6*5)+1 will be a prime
and (6*15)+1 will be a prime product.
Both 31 and 91 are "possible primes".

2006-10-23, 11:19   #16
retina
Undefined

"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

2×23×137 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by troels munkner I state that 6* any integer will never be a prime (e.g. 6*5)
Alright, my mistake there.

But your argument is still not clear. Why is 6 important? What do you mean when you say "possible primes"? Just how do you define "prime"?

Are you using the textbook/dictionary meaning for the word "prime"? Because it seems you have decided to use a different meaning than what most other people in the world consider a prime to be.

Last fiddled with by retina on 2006-10-23 at 11:20 Reason: typo

2006-10-23, 13:39   #17
Jens K Andersen

Feb 2006
Denmark

2×5×23 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jens K Andersen "Euclid (and most other mathematicians) have assumed that 2 and 3 are primes. But I claim, that 2 and 3 are not possible primes and should not be considered as “primes”." In the words of Paul: Humpty-Dumpty alert!
Quote:
 Originally Posted by troels munkner You are not very polite in your replies.
See http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.ph...48&postcount=7 for my meaning.
From Through The Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll :
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

I see that you now say 5 is not a prime number. Keep this up and you will have shown that Euclid's proof must be bad since there is only a finite number of "primes".

2010-09-03, 02:13   #18
3.14159

May 2010
Prime hunting commission.

24×3×5×7 Posts

Quote:
 Both 31 and 91 are "possible primes".
Nonsense. 91 = 7 * 13.

2010-09-03, 03:26   #19
CRGreathouse

Aug 2006

3·1,993 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by 3.14159 Nonsense. 91 = 7 * 13.
Necroposted!

2010-09-03, 08:14   #20
davieddy

"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England

2×3×13×83 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by 3.14159 Nonsense. 91 = 7 * 13.
But 91 is the trickiest 2 digit number to spot as composite.

David

2010-09-03, 12:17   #21
science_man_88

"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

20C016 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by troels munkner Read my text correctly, please. I state that 6* any integer will never be a prime (e.g. 6*5) and (6*5)+1 will be a prime and (6*15)+1 will be a prime product. Both 31 and 91 are "possible primes".
even if you say 2 and 3 aren't prime:

lets say 5 and 7 are next proven prime (which skips over your 6*integer rule)

5*7+1 = 36 could be prime but if it isn't it can be divided by a new prime that isn't 5 or 7 so even ignoring 2 and 3 you fail at disproving Euclid's proof which I first read in number freak I believe and i still understood it which marks your iq at about -20

2010-09-03, 13:06   #22
3.14159

May 2010
Prime hunting commission.

24×3×5×7 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by davieddy But 91 is the trickiest 2 digit number to spot as composite.
How about 77? 49? (7 * 11 and 72)

Last fiddled with by 3.14159 on 2010-09-03 at 13:07

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post flagrantflowers Aliquot Sequences 43 2016-10-22 08:14 Nick Number Theory Discussion Group 5 2016-10-08 09:05 literka Factoring 5 2012-01-30 12:28 CRGreathouse Math 10 2010-07-23 20:47 kayjongsma Math 4 2008-11-29 20:27

All times are UTC. The time now is 07:35.

Thu Dec 2 07:35:52 UTC 2021 up 132 days, 2:04, 0 users, load averages: 0.83, 1.22, 1.22