Euclid's proof of the infinite number of primes

[drew]

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

[troels munkner]

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

[retina]

You cannot expect to be taken seriously with contradictions like this:

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 ...

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!

[troels munkner]

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!

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".

[retina]

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.

[Jens K Andersen]

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!

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".

[3.14159]

Both 31 and 91 are "possible primes".

Nonsense. 91 = 7 * 13.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by 3.14159

Nonsense. 91 = 7 * 13.

Necroposted!

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by 3.14159

Nonsense. 91 = 7 * 13.

But 91 is the trickiest 2 digit number to spot as composite.

David

[science_man_88]

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

[3.14159]

Originally Posted by davieddy

But 91 is the trickiest 2 digit number to spot as composite.

How about 77? 49? (7 * 11 and 7²)