> But there have to be two schools of thought

> since "proof" isn't working.

> 1) Euclid's school infinite primes exist

> 2) modern school of thought : infinite primes don't exist

>

> Unless you can "conclusively" prove no infinite prime exists...

> I've seen nothing like that in the posts.

Make up your mind Roger, what are you arguing? Are you (a) talking about

whether the number of primes is infinite or not, or (b) whether there are

some magical new numbers which you decide to call "infinite primes"?

You're quite correct of course, nothing in the posts has proved that no

infinite prime exists. In the case of (a), your attempts at proof have

been less than wonderful, and in the case of (b) none of us have any

idea what you mean by infinite prime.

I presume you're talking about whether there are infinitely many primes

or not, but you still seem to think that this would imply the existence

of "infinitely large primes". Not true. There would be *arbitrarily*

large primes, but they would always be finite. It's important to

understand this. Don't you have any number theory books you can look at

for this stuff? Try the first chapter of an introductory book...

As a little amusement, suppose that there were only finitely many

primes. Then the Euler product form of the zeta function would define an

entire function, thus making zeta(s) an entirely different animal.

Congratulations Roger, you would have answered the Riemann hypothesis, one

way or another.

Andy

PS "Modern school of thought"? You mean "Roger's school of thought"?

Small school then?