|
|
Proginoskes wrote:
> a_plutonium wrote:
> > [...]
> > Okay, I am in trouble here. The square root is not going to guarantee
> > W-1 W+1 leaves a remainder of 1.
>
> So does that mean I get an apology for being "thick-headed", having a
> "weak and little mind", being a "buffoon" and a "goon", being "unable
> to understand Euclid's proof" (I never said that AP's proof was wrong,
> just that it was missing a detail), and "siding with knuckleheads" (all
> of which you've said in the past 24 hours)?
>
> Probably not.
>
> --- Christopher Heckman
There are two proofs going on here. Euclid Infinitude of Regular Primes
Indirect Method which all of the above holds true. For which you have
acted buffoonish. You never admitted your shortcomings-- that you never
did a valid Euclid Indirect Method, nor that you acknowledge the
mistake in your posted Euclid IP of Spring 2006 and you fail to correct
other buffoons over Euclid IP. By not admitting your mistake, you leave
the impression to buffoons that counterexamples are true in the
Indirect Method.
Then there is this attempted proof of the Infinitude of Twin Primes. No
apologies required since I have not said anything wayward towards you.
You owe me an apology for constantly calling me a crackpot since March
of 2006, in conversations and discussions I am not in. This is
unbecoming behaviour of a math professor and this is simply hate-spew.
If you are immature, you need to grow up more quickly than what your
present rate is.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|