Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ ¹ ² ³ °
 

You are not logged in. #1 20130810 01:49:23
Euclid's proof of infinitude of primes.Hi, I'm having trouble with euclid's proof : #2 20130810 02:20:50
Re: Euclid's proof of infinitude of primes.Wasn't that given that p was a list of the primes assuming that such a list exists and is finite? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #4 20130810 02:25:49
Re: Euclid's proof of infinitude of primes.And we assumed that it was all of them? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #6 20130810 02:30:05
Re: Euclid's proof of infinitude of primes.And that Pn was this hypothetical largest priime? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #8 20130810 02:32:10
Re: Euclid's proof of infinitude of primes.You agree that m is bigger than this Pn and that it is odd? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #10 20130810 02:35:54
Re: Euclid's proof of infinitude of primes.This m then is either prime or a product of primes ( composite ) , yes? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #12 20130810 02:41:44
Re: Euclid's proof of infinitude of primes.Let's take them one at a time. Can m be a prime? It cannot because the largest prime in the universe is Pn and m is bigger that that. To say m is a prime would be a contradiction to what we assumed, that Pn is the biggest. Yes? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #14 20130810 02:46:22
Re: Euclid's proof of infinitude of primes.Are you sure? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #15 20130810 02:49:01
Re: Euclid's proof of infinitude of primes.Yes, because if we assumed m to be prime, then it would mean that our list wasn't complete and there was a new prime that juste showed up, which wasn't in it(the complete list) Last edited by AlAllo (20130810 02:49:37) #16 20130810 02:52:34
Re: Euclid's proof of infinitude of primes.We can see that m must now be a product of primes. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #17 20130810 02:53:47
Re: Euclid's proof of infinitude of primes.I don't understand, what do you mean by : But m is not a product of any of the primes in our list,yes? #18 20130810 02:55:09
Re: Euclid's proof of infinitude of primes.m is not a a product of p1p2...pn because m would leave a remainder of 1 when divided by p1p2...pn In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #19 20130810 02:57:26
Re: Euclid's proof of infinitude of primes.Yes, for sure it would leave a remainder. Then, if m is a product of primes, what are those primes ??? Last edited by AlAllo (20130810 02:57:41) #20 20130810 03:01:42
Re: Euclid's proof of infinitude of primes.That is the point, whatever they are they are not in our list which contains all the primes up to and including Pn. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #21 20130810 03:07:25
Re: Euclid's proof of infinitude of primes.Ok, just another thing : #22 20130810 03:10:49
Re: Euclid's proof of infinitude of primes.He picks a q because m is not a prime, so it must be a product of primes. We can call one of them q. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #23 20130810 03:14:03
Re: Euclid's proof of infinitude of primes.Ok, but it's not part of our list p1,p2,etc (the q) right ? #24 20130810 03:16:10
Re: Euclid's proof of infinitude of primes.Of course not, none of them divides m! This q is weird it is a prime but it is not in the list of all the primes?! q is also impossible. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #25 20130810 03:19:03
Re: Euclid's proof of infinitude of primes.Ok, but now m/q work yes or no ??? If it is outside the list, than it should divide m, because every number is divisible.(And we don't have that remainder of 1) Last edited by AlAllo (20130810 03:19:49) 