All that is fair enough, although if I was feeling cynical I'd read

that post as "I don't know what infinite primes are, but it sounds

nice".

Perhaps before we bother ourselves with what infinite primes might be,

we should instead concentrate our efforts on persuading the apparently

unpersuadeable that Euclid's proof is correct. I can understand how

arguments about Cantor's ideas can arise, since the whole concept of

uncountability is a sticky area to get used to. But Euclid's proof?

You seem either unwilling or unable to explain what your problem is

with this ridiculously simple method. The only post in which you've

tried to explain has (purposefully?) pushed the theory to a point

where an inexperienced amateur would worry that something was wrong.

Those of us with some experience pretty much instantly pointed out

just how rubbish your arguments were. Please explain!

Andy