Browse Groups

• ## RE "problem" with Euclid's proof of the Infinitude of Primes

(1)
• NextPrevious
• ... [...] ... pn is the largest prime. ... You are right when you say W+1 is not in the set, but are wrong when you say it has to be prime. You are missing one
Message 1 of 1 , Feb 1, 2004
View Source
----- Original Message -----
[...]
> (1). The prime numbers are the numbers p1,p2,...,pn,... of set S.
> Suppose S is finite [supposition].
>
> (2). If S is finite then: p1,p2,...,pn is the complete series set, so that
pn is the largest prime.
>
> (3). Form W+1 = (p1xp2x,...,xpn) + 1.
> W+1 is not in the set S so it is not prime.
> W+1 is not divisible by any of primes in S_P so it
> is prime.
> Reverse supposition and primes are infinite.
> "

You are right when you say W+1 is not in the set, but are wrong when you say
it has to be prime. You are missing one case:

If W+1 is not divisible by any prime in S then automatically you have to
deduce that S is not the set of all primes: then you have to admit that any
number bigger than pn can be prime as well; so W+1 is either prime or
divisible by primes between pn and W+1.

Jose Brox.
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
• Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
• Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer. We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.