- 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. "

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] - 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