mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Miscellaneous Math

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2006-07-13, 14:52   #12
drew
 
drew's Avatar
 
Jun 2005

2·191 Posts
Default

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
drew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-23, 06:44   #13
troels munkner
 
troels munkner's Avatar
 
May 2006

29 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens K Andersen View Post
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
troels munkner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-23, 09:23   #14
retina
Undefined
 
retina's Avatar
 
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

2×23×137 Posts
Default

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!
retina is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-23, 11:06   #15
troels munkner
 
troels munkner's Avatar
 
May 2006

29 Posts
Default Once more

Quote:
Originally Posted by retina View Post
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!
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".
troels munkner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-23, 11:19   #16
retina
Undefined
 
retina's Avatar
 
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

2×23×137 Posts
Default

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
retina is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-23, 13:39   #17
Jens K Andersen
 
Jens K Andersen's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
Denmark

2×5×23 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens K Andersen View Post
"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 View Post
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".
Jens K Andersen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-03, 02:13   #18
3.14159
 
3.14159's Avatar
 
May 2010
Prime hunting commission.

24×3×5×7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Both 31 and 91 are "possible primes".
Nonsense. 91 = 7 * 13.
3.14159 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-03, 03:26   #19
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

3·1,993 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3.14159 View Post
Nonsense. 91 = 7 * 13.
Necroposted!
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-03, 08:14   #20
davieddy
 
davieddy's Avatar
 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England

2×3×13×83 Posts
Default

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

David
davieddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-03, 12:17   #21
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

20C016 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troels munkner View Post
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
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-03, 13:06   #22
3.14159
 
3.14159's Avatar
 
May 2010
Prime hunting commission.

24×3×5×7 Posts
Default

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
3.14159 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Number of sequences that merge with any given sequence - infinite? flagrantflowers Aliquot Sequences 43 2016-10-22 08:14
Basic Number Theory 3: gcd, lcm & Euclid's algorithm Nick Number Theory Discussion Group 5 2016-10-08 09:05
Fermat number F6=18446744073709551617 is a composite number. Proof. literka Factoring 5 2012-01-30 12:28
Estimating an infinite product over primes CRGreathouse Math 10 2010-07-23 20:47
Method of Euclid's Proof 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

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.