Prime numbers and primality testing is a Restricted Group with 1114 members.
 Prime numbers and primality testing

 Restricted Group,
 1114 members
Primary Navigation
Re: [PrimeNumbers] Infinite primes> a Turing Machine prime sieve that never stops?
Expand Messages
 0 Attachment
At 12:51 PM 11/2/2003 0800, Roger Bagula wrote:>It is reasonable to assume that an infinite prime might exist ,
I don't think so. It will stop in a finite time.
>but could never be computed.
>One definition "operationally" of "Infinity" is the nonstopping Turing
>machine.
[Nontext portions of this message have been removed] 0 Attachment
Just a quick comment, then back I go...
> In working with the Euclid proof primes
You do realize that A000945 is NOT the sequence we have been discussing
> I found that any reasonable number past about 30 primes in the
> product almost never stops in the factoring step.
> 43 primes in the product was the limit given in the A000945 definition as
> being a computing limit.
(namely, the primorial plus one series), right? A000945 is a recursive
sequence, that defines itself, using a construction similar to the Euclid
proof. In A000945, A(1)=2, A(x)=the product of all of the previous terms in
the series plus 1.
The primorials (that is, the product of all primes less than or equal to x)
plus one is the series generated by the classic Euclid proof, and those HAVE
been factored completely well beyond the 43rd prime. Also, there is a
gigantic difference between "can't compute this number with the current
programs and resources" and "can't compute this number under any
circumstances". Wagstaff stopped the computation at the 43rd prime in
*1993*. 10 years has made a huge difference in both hardware and software,
enough so that even I have factored the primorial+1 series well beyond that
point. I'm sure others with a better grasp on both theory and programming
have taken it well beyond the point I have, as well.
> It is reasonable to assume that an infinite prime might exist ,
Roger, did you not read Paul Leyland's reply to you, the one that started
> but could never be computed.
with "What is Infinity?". He explained far better than I have why the
notion of an infinite prime is absurd.
If you're not going to bother reading the replies, then why are you posting?
John 0 Attachment
I hate when my brain gets ahead of my fingers...
> proof. In A000945, A(1)=2, A(x)=the product of all of the previous terms
in
> the series plus 1.
A(x)=THE SMALLEST PRIME FACTOR of the product of all of the previous terms.
John 0 Attachment
The sequences related to Euclid's proof are:
A000945 A000946 A002585 A005265 A005266 A051342
( there are several new ones as well)
A00945 is just the first "related" sequence.
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.
It can be "argued" both ways. Paul Leyland
is good at arguing, but lacks conclusive proofs to go
with it.
It is better to accept that there is more than one possible analytic for
primes
than make "war" over it.
As I said wisdom is a better option.
John Dilick wrote:
>Just a quick comment, then back I go...

>
>
>
>>In working with the Euclid proof primes
>>I found that any reasonable number past about 30 primes in the
>>product almost never stops in the factoring step.
>>43 primes in the product was the limit given in the A000945 definition as
>>being a computing limit.
>>
>>
>
>You do realize that A000945 is NOT the sequence we have been discussing
>(namely, the primorial plus one series), right? A000945 is a recursive
>sequence, that defines itself, using a construction similar to the Euclid
>proof. In A000945, A(1)=2, A(x)=the product of all of the previous terms in
>the series plus 1.
>
>The primorials (that is, the product of all primes less than or equal to x)
>plus one is the series generated by the classic Euclid proof, and those HAVE
>been factored completely well beyond the 43rd prime. Also, there is a
>gigantic difference between "can't compute this number with the current
>programs and resources" and "can't compute this number under any
>circumstances". Wagstaff stopped the computation at the 43rd prime in
>*1993*. 10 years has made a huge difference in both hardware and software,
>enough so that even I have factored the primorial+1 series well beyond that
>point. I'm sure others with a better grasp on both theory and programming
>have taken it well beyond the point I have, as well.
>
>
>
>>It is reasonable to assume that an infinite prime might exist ,
>>but could never be computed.
>>
>>
>
>Roger, did you not read Paul Leyland's reply to you, the one that started
>with "What is Infinity?". He explained far better than I have why the
>notion of an infinite prime is absurd.
>
>If you're not going to bother reading the replies, then why are you posting?
>
>John
>
>
>
>
>Unsubscribe by an email to: primenumbersunsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>The Prime Pages : http://www.primepages.org/
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
Respectfully, Roger L. Bagula
tftn@..., 11759Waterhill Road, Lakeside,Ca 920402905,tel: 6195610814 :
URL : http://home.earthlink.net/~tftn
URL : http://victorian.fortunecity.com/carmelita/435/
[Nontext portions of this message have been removed] 0 Attachment
At 12:43 PM 11/3/2003, Roger Bagula wrote:>Dear Jud McCranie,
A prime that is infinitely large? Show me.
>Don't be tiresome.
>It is a "standard" definition.
>Look it up.
>
> > At 12:51 PM 11/2/2003 0800, Roger Bagula wrote:
> > >It is reasonable to assume that an infinite prime might exist ,
[Nontext portions of this message have been removed] 0 Attachment
> But there have to be two schools of thought
I'm sorry Roger, but proof *is* working. It's just your grasp of the
> since "proof" isn't working.
> 1) Euclid's school infinite primes exist
> 2) modern school of thought : infinite primes don't exist
concepts that's causing the bother. I'm truly amazed that you still
can't accept the Euclid proof. You seem to have a few people arguing
against you, so can you please start producing coherent arguments about
what the problem is meant to be?
Andy 0 Attachment
>>At 12:51 PM 11/2/2003 0800, Roger Bagula wrote:
It is not reasonable to assume that. Are you assuming that because there
>> >It is reasonable to assume that an infinite prime might exist ,
>>>but could never be computed.
are an infinite number of prime numbers that one of them is infinite? That
is false. There are an infinite number of primes, but each of them is finite.
Also, there is a proof "Every Prime has a succinct certificate", by Vaughn
Pratt IIRC, which says that every prime can be proven so in a finite number
of steps/time. 0 Attachment
On Monday, November 03, 2003 10:32 PM 0500 Jud McCranie <j.mccranie@...> wrote:
>
Equally, there are infinitely many integers, or even numbers, but there is no one infinite integer  it is simply the case that for any integer n, you can find a successor n+1 which is also an integer.
>>> At 12:51 PM 11/2/2003 0800, Roger Bagula wrote:
>>> > It is reasonable to assume that an infinite prime might exist ,
>>>> but could never be computed.
>
> It is not reasonable to assume that. Are you assuming that because there
> are an infinite number of prime numbers that one of them is infinite? That
> is false. There are an infinite number of primes, but each of them is finite.
Every prime also has a successor  there is no largest prime (whereas there IS a largest member of any finite set, for example there is a tallest person in the world, or a smallest planet in the solar system). However, since primes are defined as being a subset of the positive integers, there is no infinite prime.
Does that make sense, Roger?
Regards,
Nathan 0 Attachment
At 10:37 PM 11/3/2003, Nathan Russell wrote:
>Equally, there are infinitely many integers, or even numbers, but there is
Yes, and there is another thing which sometimes causes confusion, which
>no one infinite integer
might be at work here. That is the difference between something being
"unbounded" and it being "infinite". The size of integers/primes is
unbounded but that doesn't mean that the size can be infinite. Every
particular integer/prime is finite. There are an infinite number of them. 0 Attachment
At 12:43 PM 11/3/2003, Roger Bagula wrote:
>> >It is reasonable to assume that an infinite prime might exist ,
Any particular prime  no matter how large  can be computed in a finite
>>>but could never be computed.
>>>One definition "operationally" of "Infinity" is the nonstopping Turing
>>>machine.
amount of time. All primes below any finite limit, no matter how large,
can be computed in a finite time. But you can't explicitly compute all
primes in a finite time.
I've been talking too much, but I'm trying to help clear up the
misunderstanding. 0 Attachment
> From: Roger Bagula [mailto:tftn@...]
Very well, time for another argument. It would be helpful if
> The sequences related to Euclid's proof are:
> A000945 A000946 A002585 A005265 A005266 A051342
> ( there are several new ones as well)
>
> A00945 is just the first "related" sequence.
>
> 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.
> It can be "argued" both ways. Paul Leyland
> is good at arguing, but lacks conclusive proofs to go
> with it.
you respond (concisely and politely please) to each of the
questions below.
First my thesis: infinite primes do not exist. The set of
primes is infinite (because it has cardinality aleph_0).
Consider carefully the difference between these two statements.
The first says that, because infinity is not an integer and primes
are integers, the concept "infinite prime" is meaningless. The
second says that the set of primes can be put in onetoone
correspondence with the set of integers >0.
Yuo do not seem to like the classical proof, so let's prove the
number of primes (i.e the cardinality of the set of primes) is
infinite by another approach.
Do you agree that the set of natural numbers is infinite?
That is, do you believe that given a particular integer N, we can
always find a larger integer M, no matter how large N may be?
Do you agree that, given N, the value M=N+1 is larger than N?
Again, if not the game is over because we are not talking about
mathematics as understood by almost all the world's mathematicians.
Do you agree that each and every integer N > 1 has a unique
factorization into primes?
I'm concerned only with which primes appear in the factorization,
not with the order in which they are given. Numerical order is
conventional but it really doesn't matter which order they are in
for the arguments below.
Next, I am going to define F_N, where N is an integer > 0, to be
the value 2^(2^N)+1, so F_1 has the value 5, F_2 has the value 17,
F_3 has the value 257, F_4 has the value 65537, and so on.
Do you agree that the set of all values F_N is infinite?
I claim it is because the N can take any integer value and each
value of N yields a value for F_N.
Do you agree that all the values for F_N are distinct?
I claim they are because 2^N is larger than N, and 2^(2^N) is
larger than 2^N. I therefore claim that each F_i is greater
than F_j whenever i>j.
Do you agree that (x+y)*(xy) = x^2  y^2?
Now, let's take a look at F_N  2. By definition of F_N, this
quantity is equal to 2^(2^N)  1. Note that 1 is a square (it is
1 squared and that 2^(2^N) is a square (it is 2^(2^(N1)) squared.)
So, do you agree that the following equation is correct?
F_N  2 = (2^(2^(N1)) + 1) * ( 2^(2^(N1))  1)
If so, you will readily conclude that the first term is just the
definition of F_(N1), and the second is just F_(N1)  2).
Now what does this tell us? (A rhetorical question, no need to
answer). It says that F_N  2 is a multiple of F_(N1). Of course,
we have to be careful. F_i is not defined if i is less than 1, so
we have to insist that N >= 2 in the above equation. So lets start
with N=2 and work our way up.
When N=2, F_2  2 = F_1 * (F_1  2).
This is easy to check:
F_2 is 17, F_1 is 5 and, indeed F_22 = 15 = 5*3 = F_1 * (F_1 2).
When N=3, F_3  2 = 255
= F_2 * (F_2  2)
= 17 * F_1 * (F_1  2)
= 17 * 5 * 3.
When N = 4, F_4  2 = 65535
= F_3 * (F_3  2)
= 257 * F_2 * (F_2  2)
= 257 * 17 * F_1 * (F_1  2)
= 257 * 17 * 5 * 3.
With me so far? Do you agree that we can continue this process
as far as we wish, because we can increase the value of N as far as
we wish?
If not, why not? I can try to make it clearer. If you do agree,
let's proceed.
I now claim that F_M has no prime factors in common with *any* F_N
for which N < M. The reasoning is that F_M  2 is a multiple of
all F_N for which N < M. Thus, any prime factor of F_N yields a
remainder of 2 when divided into F_M. All the F_N numbers are odd,
so we can discount the prime number 2 as being a factor of any of them.
Do you agree with this claim? If not, please explain what you think
is wrong with it.
Assuming you do agree, you will also agree that I have produced an
infinite set of numbers, none of which share a common prime factor.
The set of all F_N consists only of integers, so each and every one
has at least one prime factor, agreed?
But as the set of all F_N has cardinality aleph_0, the same as the
cardinality of the set of all integers >=1, AND every member of the
set of all F_N is an integer, AND every member of the set of all F_N
has at least one prime factor, AND no two members share any prime
factors, THEN the cardinality of the set of all prime factors of all
the members of the set of all F_N is itself aleph_0.
What does the above lengthy and pedantically stated sentence say
(another rhetorical question)? It says that we have constructed
a set of prime numbers which has cardinality aleph_0. That is,
we've found an infinite set of prime numbers. This, I claim, proves
my thesis given at the start of this article. Note I do *not* claim
that the set of primes I constructed contains all the primes. In fact,
we know for certain that it does not, and you should be able to prove
that, for instance, neither 2 nor 13 are members of the set.
Nonetheless, it is an infinite set.
Conclusion: the set of all primes is infinite (has cardinality
aleph_0) because at least one set which contains only primes itself
has cardinality aleph_0.
Paul 0 Attachment
> But there have to be two schools of thought
Make up your mind Roger, what are you arguing? Are you (a) talking about
> 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.
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? 0 Attachment
I've just been trying to get the stuff on primes that calculation allows
and develop some "tricks" like:
I found a neat identity last night:
n!=Product[Prime[i],{i,1,PrimePi[n]}]*Product[Composite[i],{i,1,nPrimePi[n]}]
It allows one to compute the composites nearly directly in Mathematica:
(* Composite Product*)
p[n_]=n!/Product[Prime[i],{i,2,PrimePi[n]}]
digits=200
a0=Table[p[n]/p[n1],{n,2,digits}]
(* Composites by sorting out ones and two*)
Delete[Delete[Union[a0],1],1]
This function works much better than taking all the primes out of a list
of integers.
You can also get an higher number of primes by the Euclid proof
type integer factoring method.
Nathan Russell wrote:
>On Monday, November 03, 2003 10:32 PM 0500 Jud McCranie <j.mccranie@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>>>>At 12:51 PM 11/2/2003 0800, Roger Bagula wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It is reasonable to assume that an infinite prime might exist ,
>>>>>but could never be computed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>It is not reasonable to assume that. Are you assuming that because there
>>are an infinite number of prime numbers that one of them is infinite? That
>>is false. There are an infinite number of primes, but each of them is finite.
>>
>>
>
>Equally, there are infinitely many integers, or even numbers, but there is no one infinite integer  it is simply the case that for any integer n, you can find a successor n+1 which is also an integer.
>
>Every prime also has a successor  there is no largest prime (whereas there IS a largest member of any finite set, for example there is a tallest person in the world, or a smallest planet in the solar system). However, since primes are defined as being a subset of the positive integers, there is no infinite prime.
>
>Does that make sense, Roger?
>
>Regards,
>Nathan
>
>
>Unsubscribe by an email to: primenumbersunsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>The Prime Pages : http://www.primepages.org/
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
Respectfully, Roger L. Bagula
tftn@..., 11759Waterhill Road, Lakeside,Ca 920402905,tel: 6195610814 :
URL : http://home.earthlink.net/~tftn
URL : http://victorian.fortunecity.com/carmelita/435/
[Nontext portions of this message have been removed] 0 Attachment
The concept of "infinity"
is a Platonic ideal.
It can't be proven.
It is a limiting axiomatic definition (asymptotic).
So arguing if such an such types of infinity
exist , makes sense only if the limiting
case is assumed to exist in the first place.
Mathematics can be defined as two cases:
1) numbers where infinity is defined
2) numbers where no infinity is defined or definable as
being a nonoperational definition
( it crashes Mathematica, ha, ha... )
It is a philosophical distinction outside of normal mathematics.
Called since Gödel's time "metamathematical" statements/ arguments
after it was realized that a philosophical threshold
existed in certain kinds of proofs.
Statements like :
3) Aleph1=2^Aleph0
are outside of ordinary mathematics.
The algebra of transfinites is really a form of
metamathematics invented and outside ordinary mathematics.
It has it's own axiom system and rules.
The idea of an infinite prime would have to be
in this context and not in the context of finite primes at all.
A lot of people don't like it pointed out that irrational numbers depend on
a statement like 3)
being accepted as an axiomatic definition.
Like Euclid's product proof,
Cantor's proof of transfinites is also widely faulted in
modern mathematics.
The result is you get philosophical
and nearly religious in tone arguments
in mathematical forms like these egroups.
At first I didn't realize that it was that basic a
"postulate" , "axiom"
or
"definition", but it has become clear
that it is.
In modern science we are talking about a quantum
measure limit near 10^(33) cm, below which
what we know of as material and fields can't exist.
Much of current discussion on quantum gravity
comes down to "finite lattices" of spatial points.
So ideas at the integer level become very important.
And "infinities" become important on a philosophical
basis:
do they exist
or don't they?
Most of our calculations that make up
our ordinary lives don't require that any kind of infinity exists.
I don't know if any of this answers you list of questions or not.
I really don't like to get in such discussions,
since math people seem to ignore any philosophical issues by defining
them away.
Axioms and definitions are an answer to all their thinking problems?
As a physical scientist ( chemist, physical scientist)
I'm not bound by those rules in my thinking.
So I'm glad to say I can think of things outside of those rules.
I used to think that the topological approach was an answer
but that approach is bounded by set theory as well
and the logical problems of set theory seem to crop up
in it's proofs of infinite primes too?
The basic/ fundamental question seems to be :
Is any system that is based on axioms that resolve into
Platonic ideals, actually inductively defensible
as a form of knowledge?
In other words is science more fundamental
philosophically than mathematics at a metamathematical level?
Paul Leyland wrote:
>>From: Roger Bagula [mailto:tftn@...]

>>
>>
>
>
>
>>The sequences related to Euclid's proof are:
>>A000945 A000946 A002585 A005265 A005266 A051342
>>( there are several new ones as well)
>>
>>A00945 is just the first "related" sequence.
>>
>>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.
>>It can be "argued" both ways. Paul Leyland
>>is good at arguing, but lacks conclusive proofs to go
>>with it.
>>
>>
>
>Very well, time for another argument. It would be helpful if
>you respond (concisely and politely please) to each of the
>questions below.
>
>First my thesis: infinite primes do not exist. The set of
>primes is infinite (because it has cardinality aleph_0).
>
>Consider carefully the difference between these two statements.
>The first says that, because infinity is not an integer and primes
>are integers, the concept "infinite prime" is meaningless. The
>second says that the set of primes can be put in onetoone
>correspondence with the set of integers >0.
>
>Yuo do not seem to like the classical proof, so let's prove the
>number of primes (i.e the cardinality of the set of primes) is
>infinite by another approach.
>
>Do you agree that the set of natural numbers is infinite?
>
>That is, do you believe that given a particular integer N, we can
>always find a larger integer M, no matter how large N may be?
>
>Do you agree that, given N, the value M=N+1 is larger than N?
>
>Again, if not the game is over because we are not talking about
>mathematics as understood by almost all the world's mathematicians.
>
>Do you agree that each and every integer N > 1 has a unique
>factorization into primes?
>
>I'm concerned only with which primes appear in the factorization,
>not with the order in which they are given. Numerical order is
>conventional but it really doesn't matter which order they are in
>for the arguments below.
>
>Next, I am going to define F_N, where N is an integer > 0, to be
>the value 2^(2^N)+1, so F_1 has the value 5, F_2 has the value 17,
>F_3 has the value 257, F_4 has the value 65537, and so on.
>
>Do you agree that the set of all values F_N is infinite?
>
>I claim it is because the N can take any integer value and each
>value of N yields a value for F_N.
>
>Do you agree that all the values for F_N are distinct?
>
>I claim they are because 2^N is larger than N, and 2^(2^N) is
>larger than 2^N. I therefore claim that each F_i is greater
>than F_j whenever i>j.
>
>Do you agree that (x+y)*(xy) = x^2  y^2?
>
>Now, let's take a look at F_N  2. By definition of F_N, this
>quantity is equal to 2^(2^N)  1. Note that 1 is a square (it is
>1 squared and that 2^(2^N) is a square (it is 2^(2^(N1)) squared.)
>
>So, do you agree that the following equation is correct?
>
>F_N  2 = (2^(2^(N1)) + 1) * ( 2^(2^(N1))  1)
>
>If so, you will readily conclude that the first term is just the
>definition of F_(N1), and the second is just F_(N1)  2).
>
>Now what does this tell us? (A rhetorical question, no need to
>answer). It says that F_N  2 is a multiple of F_(N1). Of course,
>we have to be careful. F_i is not defined if i is less than 1, so
>we have to insist that N >= 2 in the above equation. So lets start
>with N=2 and work our way up.
>
>When N=2, F_2  2 = F_1 * (F_1  2).
>
>This is easy to check:
>F_2 is 17, F_1 is 5 and, indeed F_22 = 15 = 5*3 = F_1 * (F_1 2).
>
>When N=3, F_3  2 = 255
> = F_2 * (F_2  2)
> = 17 * F_1 * (F_1  2)
> = 17 * 5 * 3.
>
>When N = 4, F_4  2 = 65535
> = F_3 * (F_3  2)
> = 257 * F_2 * (F_2  2)
> = 257 * 17 * F_1 * (F_1  2)
> = 257 * 17 * 5 * 3.
>
>With me so far? Do you agree that we can continue this process
>as far as we wish, because we can increase the value of N as far as
>we wish?
>
>If not, why not? I can try to make it clearer. If you do agree,
>let's proceed.
>
>I now claim that F_M has no prime factors in common with *any* F_N
>for which N < M. The reasoning is that F_M  2 is a multiple of
>all F_N for which N < M. Thus, any prime factor of F_N yields a
>remainder of 2 when divided into F_M. All the F_N numbers are odd,
>so we can discount the prime number 2 as being a factor of any of them.
>
>Do you agree with this claim? If not, please explain what you think
>is wrong with it.
>
>Assuming you do agree, you will also agree that I have produced an
>infinite set of numbers, none of which share a common prime factor.
>
>The set of all F_N consists only of integers, so each and every one
>has at least one prime factor, agreed?
>
>But as the set of all F_N has cardinality aleph_0, the same as the
>cardinality of the set of all integers >=1, AND every member of the
>set of all F_N is an integer, AND every member of the set of all F_N
>has at least one prime factor, AND no two members share any prime
>factors, THEN the cardinality of the set of all prime factors of all
>the members of the set of all F_N is itself aleph_0.
>
>What does the above lengthy and pedantically stated sentence say
>(another rhetorical question)? It says that we have constructed
>a set of prime numbers which has cardinality aleph_0. That is,
>we've found an infinite set of prime numbers. This, I claim, proves
>my thesis given at the start of this article. Note I do *not* claim
>that the set of primes I constructed contains all the primes. In fact,
>we know for certain that it does not, and you should be able to prove
>that, for instance, neither 2 nor 13 are members of the set.
>Nonetheless, it is an infinite set.
>
>Conclusion: the set of all primes is infinite (has cardinality
>aleph_0) because at least one set which contains only primes itself
>has cardinality aleph_0.
>
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>Unsubscribe by an email to: primenumbersunsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>The Prime Pages : http://www.primepages.org/
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
Respectfully, Roger L. Bagula
tftn@..., 11759Waterhill Road, Lakeside,Ca 920402905,tel: 6195610814 :
URL : http://home.earthlink.net/~tftn
URL : http://victorian.fortunecity.com/carmelita/435/
[Nontext portions of this message have been removed] 0 Attachment
Mr Bagula has been accused of writing "incomprehensible gibberish" before.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/5113/fr33.htm
Don't feed the trolls.
__________________________________________________
Virus checked by MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. 0 Attachment
 In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, Roger Bagula <tftn@e...> wrote:> The concept of "infinity"
I don't know if "the concept of infinity" can be proven, but
> is a Platonic ideal.
> It can't be proven.
statements about transfinite numbers can be.
> It is a limiting axiomatic definition (asymptotic).
Which is irrelevant to the philosophical argument.
> So arguing if such an such types of infinity
> exist , makes sense only if the limiting
> case is assumed to exist in the first place.
> Mathematics can be defined as two cases:
> 1) numbers where infinity is defined
> 2) numbers where no infinity is defined or definable as
> being a nonoperational definition
> ( it crashes Mathematica, ha, ha... )
The number 3^100 cannot be represented exactly in most versions of C,
and pi cannot be represented exactly in any language I know of without
taking shortcuts. Does this mean neither exists?
> It is a philosophical distinction outside of normal mathematics.
No, they're just plain false (and I believe that can be shown from
> Called since Gödel's time "metamathematical" statements/ arguments
> after it was realized that a philosophical threshold
> existed in certain kinds of proofs.
> Statements like :
> 3) Aleph1=2^Aleph0
> are outside of ordinary mathematics.
ZFC, though I wouldn't want to try from scratch).
Assume Aleph1=2^Aleph0. This implies that there is a mapping from the
Aleph1 real numbers onto the base 2 logarithms of the Aleph0 integers.
However, there are only countably many such logarithms (since there
are only countably many positive integers for them to be logarithms
of). This is a contradiction (and I'm sure it can be stated much more
formally). I would agree that the integers are a proper subset of the
base2 logs of integers, just as the primes, perfect squares, and
numbers evenly divisible by 100 are proper subsets of the integers.
However, all those sets are countably infinite.
> The algebra of transfinites is really a form of
Not quite the case.
> metamathematics invented and outside ordinary mathematics.
> It has it's own axiom system and rules.
> The idea of an infinite prime would have to be
True.
> in this context and not in the context of finite primes at all.
> A lot of people don't like it pointed out that irrational numbers
depend on
> a statement like 3)
By whom? And which proof? The diagonal argument? Care to name
> being accepted as an axiomatic definition.
> Like Euclid's product proof,
> Cantor's proof of transfinites is also widely faulted in
> modern mathematics.
someone who faults it?
> The result is you get philosophical
So if I asked you to design a plastic that would work in a world where
> and nearly religious in tone arguments
> in mathematical forms like these egroups.
> At first I didn't realize that it was that basic a
> "postulate" , "axiom"
> or
> "definition", but it has become clear
> that it is.
> I really don't like to get in such discussions,
> since math people seem to ignore any philosophical issues by defining
> them away.
> Axioms and definitions are an answer to all their thinking problems?
> As a physical scientist ( chemist, physical scientist)
> I'm not bound by those rules in my thinking.
the electromagnetic constant was 1/1000 of its present value, you
could, without starting from scratch? That's about the equivalent of
what you're asking us to do.
Regards,
Nathan 0 Attachment
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 0 Attachment
At 11:20 AM 11/4/2003, Roger Bagula wrote:>The proof that has been in discussion is at:
That shows that there are  an infinite number of primes. It does NOT
><http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/notes/proofs/infinite/euclids.html>http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/notes/proofs/infinite/euclids.html
show that there is an "infinite prime". That is what we have been trying
to explain to you, and your recent message says
"Infinitely many primes is distinct from an Infinite Prime." 0 Attachment
At 11:24 AM 11/4/2003, Roger Bagula wrote:>Other proofs at:
Again, those are proofs that there are an infinite number of primes. None
><http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/notes/proofs/infinite/index.html>http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/notes/proofs/infinite/index.html
>
> *
> <http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/notes/proofs/infinite/topproof.html>Furstenberg's
> Topological Proof (1955)
>
><http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/notes/proofs/infinite/topproof.html>http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/notes/proofs/infinite/topproof.html
>
> *
> <http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/notes/proofs/infinite/goldbach.html>Goldbach's
> Proof (1730)
>
><http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/notes/proofs/infinite/goldbach.html>http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/notes/proofs/infinite/goldbach.html
of us disagree with that. But you are assuming that an infinite number of
primes implies an "infinite prime", and your own recent message says that
isn't the case
"A semantic distinction needs to be made:
Infinitely many primes is distinct from an Infinite Prime.
Although one seems to imply the other,
they really involve two separate cases. "
[Nontext portions of this message have been removed] 0 Attachment
Roger Bagula wrote:
[Philosophical meandering deleted.]
> I don't know if any of this answers you list of questions or not.
No, it does not. Please post again, including my text and at
the appropriate point intersperse your answer to each specific
question that I asked.
> I really don't like to get in such discussions,
That is becoming ever more clear as time goes by.
> since math people seem to ignore any philosophical issues by
Close, but no cigar. Axioms and definitions are the foundations
> defining them away. Axioms and definitions are an answer
> to all their thinking problems?
of mathematical thinking. Rigorously correct logical arguments
are the building blocks placed on the foundations. If you wish to
be considered to be doing mathematics, please use clear and precise
logic.
> As a physical scientist ( chemist, physical scientist)
Ah, so you're not a mathematician and you are not interested in
> I'm not bound by those rules in my thinking.
participating in mathematics. Why, then, are you making so much
noise in an indubitably mathematical forum?
FWIW, my background is in the physical sciences. I have a BA in
chemistry from Oxford and my DPhil was for research in molecular
spectroscopy. I personally don't regard that as an obstacle to
contributing in a small way to a mathematical subject. I'm not
bound by the rules of mathematics any more than you are, but I
choose to follow them when communicating with mathematicians. If
you wish to converse with practitioners of other fields of study,
please do so but, please, do it in a relevant forum elsewhere and
use their rules to do so. Again, FWIW, I'm quite happy to talk
about quantum field theory or geometrodynamics, but not here.
> In other words is science more fundamental
A very good question and one well worth discussing, but not here.
> philosophically than mathematics at a metamathematical level?
It is not (IMO, the moderators may disagree) relevant to the
advertised aims of the forum.
Paul
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.