20190208, 19:23  #34 
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
9402_{10} Posts 

20190208, 20:56  #35  
"William"
May 2003
New Haven
2^{3}·5·59 Posts 
Quote:
1. you feel that it is obvious that if the set is finite, there must be a last element of the Eratosthenes Sieve. 2. I have shown a different problem where everyone agrees the set is finite and everyone agrees there is no last element of the Eratosthenes Sieve. 3. You do not see any reason why the existence of the second example might cast doubt on the obviousness of the first claim. If so, I conclude that you are too hard headed to enter into a serious back and forth discussion. 

20190209, 16:12  #36 
Feb 2019
7·13 Posts 
There we go again i.e. the formulation of new problems and trying to make an analogy with my proof. First of, the word 'factor' is being used instead of 'multiple' and yet some of you show solidarity with this poster. If anybody is being strong headed, it's not me but some of you. Some of you talk of 'rigorous' proof. This is what is blocking you all from accepting the simplicity of my proof because you just can't believe that the proof is that simple especially because Field medalists like Terence Tao and his collaborators are trying in vain with his polymath project to crack this problem.

20190209, 16:17  #37 
Jun 2003
2×3^{2}×269 Posts 
The crank score is over 9000!

20190209, 17:02  #38 
Banned
"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia
2^{3}×599 Posts 
 *  DISCONNECTED  * 

20190209, 18:15  #39 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
7·659 Posts 
Perhaps OP should spend some time googling proofs of the twin prime conjecture, to see that his "proof" has been presented dozens of times over decades (generations?).
Perhaps when he learns his idea is not new and not original he'll grow less attached to it. Then again, perhaps he cannot understand the words other people use, and will continue to think his idea is original despite the dozens of others who had the same incorrect idea. 
20190209, 22:56  #40 
"William"
May 2003
New Haven
2^{3}·5·59 Posts 

20190210, 16:36  #41 
Feb 2017
Nowhere
104B_{16} Posts 
I offer a couple of definitions from my old MerriamWebster Second Unabridged.
crotchet, n. [...] 3) a a perverse fancy; a whimsey b a fanciful contrivance crank, n. [...] 9) A person with a crotchet or a mental twist; one given to fantastic or impracticable projects or a hobby; one overenthusiastic or of perverted judgement in respect to a particular matter; a monomaniac. colloq I also mention a word which has a couple of meanings: plonk. It has a venerable meaning of cheap or lowgrade booze. John Mortimer's character Horace Rumpole ("Rumpole of the Bailey") often referred to the wine at Pomeroy's bar as "Pomeroy's plonk" (as well as "Chateau Thames Embankment"). The word acquired a new meaning with the advent of the Usenet. The Usenet predecessor of this Forum's "Ignore list" had the immensely satisfying name of "kill file." And the term "plonk" meant putting someone's monicker in your kill file. You would then not only not see their posts, you would also not see any notification that their posts were hidden. 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Twin Prime Conjecture Proof  Steve One  Miscellaneous Math  53  20190318 00:34 
A proof for the Twin Prime Conjecture  Carl Fischbach  Miscellaneous Math  7  20090624 05:52 
The Twin Prime Conjecture Song  Templus  Lounge  9  20060314 16:30 