20060713, 14:52  #12  
Jun 2005
2×191 Posts 
Quote:
Drew 

20061023, 06:44  #13  
May 2006
29 Posts 
Quote:
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 

20061023, 09:23  #14  
Undefined
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair
2·3·1,093 Posts 
You cannot expect to be taken seriously with contradictions like this:
Quote:
Quote:
If you made your arguments clearer perhaps people would be more polite! 

20061023, 11:06  #15  
May 2006
29_{10} Posts 
Once more
Quote:
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". 

20061023, 11:19  #16  
Undefined
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair
2×3×1,093 Posts 
Quote:
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 20061023 at 11:20 Reason: typo 

20061023, 13:39  #17  
Feb 2006
Denmark
2×5×23 Posts 
Quote:
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". 

20100903, 02:13  #18  
May 2010
Prime hunting commission.
2^{4}·3·5·7 Posts 
Quote:


20100903, 03:26  #19 
Aug 2006
3×1,993 Posts 

20100903, 08:14  #20 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
14512_{8} Posts 

20100903, 12:17  #21  
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville
10000011000110_{2} Posts 
Quote:
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 

20100903, 13:06  #22  
May 2010
Prime hunting commission.
2^{4}×3×5×7 Posts 
Quote:
Last fiddled with by 3.14159 on 20100903 at 13:07 

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  20161022 08:14 
Basic Number Theory 3: gcd, lcm & Euclid's algorithm  Nick  Number Theory Discussion Group  5  20161008 09:05 
Fermat number F6=18446744073709551617 is a composite number. Proof.  literka  Factoring  5  20120130 12:28 
Estimating an infinite product over primes  CRGreathouse  Math  10  20100723 20:47 
Method of Euclid's Proof  kayjongsma  Math  4  20081129 20:27 