Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #424961 > unrolled thread

Math has a new definition of what it means to be Prime// why the Riemann Hypothesis is total junk math

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  Math has a new definition of what it means to be Prime// why the Riemann Hypothesis is total junk math Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 14:33 -0700
    Re: Math has a new definition of what it means to be Prime// why the Riemann Hypothesis is total junk math Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 15:15 -0700
      Outright Division and Reduce to Lowest Terms Conjecture in AP Columns Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 13:33 -0700
        Re: AP's stupid conjecture eastside.erik@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 13:58 -0700
          Re: AP's stupid conjecture moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-05 21:21 +0000
        can a prime or odd composite exist that has just a reduce to lowest term ? Re: Outright Division and Reduce to Lowest Terms Conjecture in AP Columns Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 22:27 -0700
          Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-06 06:29 +0000

#424961 — Math has a new definition of what it means to be Prime// why the Riemann Hypothesis is total junk math

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:58:34 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Math has a new refined definition of Prime, far better than Old
 Math's// why the Riemann Hypothesis is a lie in math comparable to the Humor
 Lie of Medicine
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 20:58:34 +0000

Math has a new refined definition of Prime, far better than Old Math's// why the Riemann Hypothesis is a lie in math comparable to the Humor Lie of Medicine

- show quoted text -

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:21:48 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: AP COLUMN, new mathematics that equals ALGEBRA OF FORM such as 9+6N
 is all odd composites of 3, beyond 9// AP's superior prime predictor over
 Ulam's Prime Spiral
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 20:21:48 +0000

AP COLUMN, new mathematics that equals ALGEBRA OF FORM such as 9+6N is all odd composites of 3, beyond 9// AP's superior prime predictor over Ulam's Prime Spiral

Someone asked if this is special. 

> Is this right triangle special?  If so, why? 
> 
> 119, 120, 169 


Nothing special at all, in fact, somewhat misleading to novices. 

The pattern that real mathematicians need to focus upon is this 

2 x 3 = 6 so there is a B,C of A,B, C where A= 3, 3,4,5 such that 3^2 = 4+5 

moving on to next odd number 

3 x 5 = 15 so that is the boundary where A,B,C of 5= A and so we have 12,13 for B,C as to 5^2 = 25 = 12+13 

Catch the drift of how easy it is to form PPT with UNIT PPT 

So the question was, what about 119 

We follow the "yellow brick road" above 

Take 119 and add 1 which is 120, now divide by 2 which is 60 -- our "frontal Increment" 

60 x 119 = 7140 which is our boundary for B,C and thus 119^2 = 14,161 and taking 1/2 of that is 7080.5 and so our B= 7080 while C = 7081 

Thus we have the UNIT PPT 119,7080,7081 

Now we ask is 119 prime or composite. In fact we could have asked this question before finding the PPT the method of AP Columns 

119   0 
118   1 
117   2 
116   3 signifies not divisible by 3 since coprime 
115   4 
114   5 
113   6 again, not divisible by 3 since coprime 
112   7 now 119 is not prime because 112 is divisible by 7 

The AP COLUMN Method is simply a ALGEBRA OF FORM is that of 49 + 7N are all odd numbers beyond 49 which are divisible by 7 and so 112 is just 49 + 7*9 with N=9 

The AP COLUMN is just a fancy name for ALGEBRA OF FORM 

In fact I can summarize the entire AP COLUMN as the mathematics concept of Algebra of Form 

No mystery to why it works for it is the same thing as why 9 + 6N works to eliminate all odd numbers as composite odd for they are factorable by 3, in the sequence 9, 15, 21, 27, 33, 39, 45, etc 

The AP pattern of primes involves divulging all Odd Unit PPT, inspection of the odd number and determination of prime or composite. 

The PATTERN FORMULA of all primes is 1/2 of (odd number +1) as Frontal Increment to construct the UNIT PPT 

In New Math, we worry only about primes up to 1*10^604, because all of mathematics breaksdown beyond this number and is no longer mathematics. For that is the infinity borderline and mathematics is only "probabilistic science", not guaranteed science beyond the border. 

Yesterday I asked the question, how good can we engineer a computer to do AP COLUMNS and begin to spit out all the primes from 1*10^604 and below. 

New Math definition of Prime Number-- its AP Column is all Coprime, once you delete 0,1. 

AP

Continuing....

Now, there maybe some huge huge huge surprises as to comparing Old Math's definition of Prime with comparing New Math's definition of prime. What I mean is, when we did the AP Column of 21 

21   0 
20  1 
19  2 
18  3 
17  4 
16  5 
15  6 
14  7 
13  8 
12  9 
11  10 

Notice we get two classes of NON-COPRIME, we get the class of outright full division such as 18/3 and 14/7 

And then we get a different class of NON-COPRIME that of 15/6 is reducable to 5/2 and 12/9 is reducable in lowest terms to 4/3 

So that the definition of PRIME in Old Math was a utterly crude crude crude concept that needed vast sharpening up, it was a "dull instrument" one can say. 

The New Math definition of Prime takes into consideration of not only outright full division, but of a nuanced prime, a finessed prime in that of reduction to lowest terms involved in the concept of prime. 

So, let that be a New Era Math conjecture-- can you have Primes that exist only with "not coprime with only reduction to lowest terms and without a outright full division available". I do not know, perhaps one of the odd composites between 3 and 1009 is a composite that has no outright division of its AP Column. 

And all of this relates to what is in the math news today-- Atiyah with his fake Riemann Hypothesis proof. Fake, fake, fake math just like Wiles with his fake FLT, and Hales with his fake Kepler Packing and Appel & Haken with their fake 4 Color Mapping. But there is one big difference, RH is totally false, total piece of worthless math junk. With FLT, and 4 Color Mapping those are true statements but only fake proofs offered by Wiles and Appel & Haken. In the case of Kepler Packing the statement itself needs huge major repairs and hence never was a proof available for the statement is missing conditions near the infinity borderline where a different style of packing can increase the density, and that one form of packing is insufficient-- just like our suitcases, where at the end we rearrange our pattern of packing to squeeze in an additional item. 

But RH is far worse than even Kepler Packing for KP is about a form of packing that is a majority form, then at the end we shift style of packing to increase the density-- the reason KP was never proven for it is a variable packing-- not just one solitary uniform packing-- for it needs to consider the infinity borderlines to be a true proof of mathematics. 

As for RH-- well, it is totally false, there is no saving of RH at all. It is a total piece of mired falsehood of mathematics. It is one lie after another lie after another lie in mathematics. RH has no consideration of what Infinity means with infinity borderlines to consider. RH is built from polluted numbers of Reals, Complex even the garbage of negative numbers, when those are trash, and the true numbers of mathematics are Grid Numbers. No Complex numbers exist. No irrational numbers exist. No transcendental numbers exist. No negative numbers exist. RH is math's monster fakery-- Fake Science Supreme Mountain of fakery build up over decades, just as in Ancient times the liaring of Medicine as some silly black bile, yellow bile, phlegm,and blood that nonsense built up one lie to cover the next lie and the next lie to the hideous point where you have doctors with leeches draining the blood of victims, not patients. The Riemann Hypothesis in mathematics is the modern day LIE of mathematics that was the Humor theory of Medicine. Yes, when we look at Wiles, at Hales, at Appel & Haken at Atiyah, we are looking at some doctor in white clothes ready to administer leeches to cure some poor math graduate student of any common sense math he/she may have had, and is now been leeched of that last remnant of mathematical intelligence.

Every science, math included builds up a Lie to such a massive proportion-- Humor in Medicine, the Epicycles of Ptolemy in Astronomy, the phlogiston of physics and the Big Bang and Black Holes of physics, and the Riemann Hypothesis in mathematics. 

Every science builds up a lie to such a massive proportion, that it becomes so ridiculous and to see grown men-- grown mathematicians with their "microgram brain of logic" worship such lies as to think they have proven the lie. (Deluded kook crackpots seeking fame--and too stupid to ever realize it was-- just a lie, just a lie, just a lie all along.) 

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#424963

Correction below, and applied to original

So, let that be a New Era Math conjecture-- can you have Odd Composites that exist only with "not coprime with only reduction to lowest terms and without a outright full division available". I do not know, perhaps one of the odd composites between 3 and 1009 is a composite that has no outright division of its AP Column.


On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 4:33:47 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Newsgroups: sci.math
> Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:58:34 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: Math has a new refined definition of Prime, far better than Old
>  Math's// why the Riemann Hypothesis is a lie in math comparable to the Humor
>  Lie of Medicine
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 20:58:34 +0000
> 
> Math has a new refined definition of Prime, far better than Old Math's// why the Riemann Hypothesis is a lie in math comparable to the Humor Lie of Medicine
> 
> - show quoted text -
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.math
> Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: AP COLUMN, new mathematics that equals ALGEBRA OF FORM such as 9+6N
>  is all odd composites of 3, beyond 9// AP's superior prime predictor over
>  Ulam's Prime Spiral
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 20:21:48 +0000
> 
> AP COLUMN, new mathematics that equals ALGEBRA OF FORM such as 9+6N is all odd composites of 3, beyond 9// AP's superior prime predictor over Ulam's Prime Spiral
> 
> Someone asked if this is special. 
> 
> > Is this right triangle special?  If so, why? 
> > 
> > 119, 120, 169 
> 
> 
> Nothing special at all, in fact, somewhat misleading to novices. 
> 
> The pattern that real mathematicians need to focus upon is this 
> 
> 2 x 3 = 6 so there is a B,C of A,B, C where A= 3, 3,4,5 such that 3^2 = 4+5 
> 
> moving on to next odd number 
> 
> 3 x 5 = 15 so that is the boundary where A,B,C of 5= A and so we have 12,13 for B,C as to 5^2 = 25 = 12+13 
> 
> Catch the drift of how easy it is to form PPT with UNIT PPT 
> 
> So the question was, what about 119 
> 
> We follow the "yellow brick road" above 
> 
> Take 119 and add 1 which is 120, now divide by 2 which is 60 -- our "frontal Increment" 
> 
> 60 x 119 = 7140 which is our boundary for B,C and thus 119^2 = 14,161 and taking 1/2 of that is 7080.5 and so our B= 7080 while C = 7081 
> 
> Thus we have the UNIT PPT 119,7080,7081 
> 
> Now we ask is 119 prime or composite. In fact we could have asked this question before finding the PPT the method of AP Columns 
> 
> 119   0 
> 118   1 
> 117   2 
> 116   3 signifies not divisible by 3 since coprime 
> 115   4 
> 114   5 
> 113   6 again, not divisible by 3 since coprime 
> 112   7 now 119 is not prime because 112 is divisible by 7 
> 
> The AP COLUMN Method is simply a ALGEBRA OF FORM is that of 49 + 7N are all odd numbers beyond 49 which are divisible by 7 and so 112 is just 49 + 7*9 with N=9 
> 
> The AP COLUMN is just a fancy name for ALGEBRA OF FORM 
> 
> In fact I can summarize the entire AP COLUMN as the mathematics concept of Algebra of Form 
> 
> No mystery to why it works for it is the same thing as why 9 + 6N works to eliminate all odd numbers as composite odd for they are factorable by 3, in the sequence 9, 15, 21, 27, 33, 39, 45, etc 
> 
> The AP pattern of primes involves divulging all Odd Unit PPT, inspection of the odd number and determination of prime or composite. 
> 
> The PATTERN FORMULA of all primes is 1/2 of (odd number +1) as Frontal Increment to construct the UNIT PPT 
> 
> In New Math, we worry only about primes up to 1*10^604, because all of mathematics breaksdown beyond this number and is no longer mathematics. For that is the infinity borderline and mathematics is only "probabilistic science", not guaranteed science beyond the border. 
> 
> Yesterday I asked the question, how good can we engineer a computer to do AP COLUMNS and begin to spit out all the primes from 1*10^604 and below. 
> 
> New Math definition of Prime Number-- its AP Column is all Coprime, once you delete 0,1. 
> 
> AP
> 
> Continuing....
> 
> Now, there maybe some huge huge huge surprises as to comparing Old Math's definition of Prime with comparing New Math's definition of prime. What I mean is, when we did the AP Column of 21 
> 
> 21   0 
> 20  1 
> 19  2 
> 18  3 
> 17  4 
> 16  5 
> 15  6 
> 14  7 
> 13  8 
> 12  9 
> 11  10 
> 
> Notice we get two classes of NON-COPRIME, we get the class of outright full division such as 18/3 and 14/7 
> 
> And then we get a different class of NON-COPRIME that of 15/6 is reducable to 5/2 and 12/9 is reducable in lowest terms to 4/3 
> 
> So that the definition of PRIME in Old Math was a utterly crude crude crude concept that needed vast sharpening up, it was a "dull instrument" one can say. 
> 
> The New Math definition of Prime takes into consideration of not only outright full division, but of a nuanced prime, a finessed prime in that of reduction to lowest terms involved in the concept of prime. 
> 
> So, let that be a New Era Math conjecture-- can you have Primes that exist only with "not coprime with only reduction to lowest terms and without a outright full division available". I do not know, perhaps one of the odd composites between 3 and 1009 is a composite that has no outright division of its AP Column. 
> 
> And all of this relates to what is in the math news today-- Atiyah with his fake Riemann Hypothesis proof. Fake, fake, fake math just like Wiles with his fake FLT, and Hales with his fake Kepler Packing and Appel & Haken with their fake 4 Color Mapping. But there is one big difference, RH is totally false, total piece of worthless math junk. With FLT, and 4 Color Mapping those are true statements but only fake proofs offered by Wiles and Appel & Haken. In the case of Kepler Packing the statement itself needs huge major repairs and hence never was a proof available for the statement is missing conditions near the infinity borderline where a different style of packing can increase the density, and that one form of packing is insufficient-- just like our suitcases, where at the end we rearrange our pattern of packing to squeeze in an additional item. 
> 
> But RH is far worse than even Kepler Packing for KP is about a form of packing that is a majority form, then at the end we shift style of packing to increase the density-- the reason KP was never proven for it is a variable packing-- not just one solitary uniform packing-- for it needs to consider the infinity borderlines to be a true proof of mathematics. 
> 
> As for RH-- well, it is totally false, there is no saving of RH at all. It is a total piece of mired falsehood of mathematics. It is one lie after another lie after another lie in mathematics. RH has no consideration of what Infinity means with infinity borderlines to consider. RH is built from polluted numbers of Reals, Complex even the garbage of negative numbers, when those are trash, and the true numbers of mathematics are Grid Numbers. No Complex numbers exist. No irrational numbers exist. No transcendental numbers exist. No negative numbers exist. RH is math's monster fakery-- Fake Science Supreme Mountain of fakery build up over decades, just as in Ancient times the liaring of Medicine as some silly black bile, yellow bile, phlegm,and blood that nonsense built up one lie to cover the next lie and the next lie to the hideous point where you have doctors with leeches draining the blood of victims, not patients. The Riemann Hypothesis in mathematics is the modern day LIE of mathematics that was the Humor theory of Medicine. Yes, when we look at Wiles, at Hales, at Appel & Haken at Atiyah, we are looking at some doctor in white clothes ready to administer leeches to cure some poor math graduate student of any common sense math he/she may have had, and is now been leeched of that last remnant of mathematical intelligence.
> 
> Every science, math included builds up a Lie to such a massive proportion-- Humor in Medicine, the Epicycles of Ptolemy in Astronomy, the phlogiston of physics and the Big Bang and Black Holes of physics, and the Riemann Hypothesis in mathematics. 
> 
> Every science builds up a lie to such a massive proportion, that it becomes so ridiculous and to see grown men-- grown mathematicians with their "microgram brain of logic" worship such lies as to think they have proven the lie. (Deluded kook crackpots seeking fame--and too stupid to ever realize it was-- just a lie, just a lie, just a lie all along.) 
> 
> AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425025 — Outright Division and Reduce to Lowest Terms Conjecture in AP Columns

Alright, I have a brand new definition of Prime, that involves AP Columns. And it leaves a conjecture open.

Now let me display the 9 column and the 21 column

9   0
8   1
7   2
6   3 full division
5   4


21   0
20   1
19   2
18   3  outright division
17   4
16   5
15   6  not coprime, reduce to lowest terms
14   7  outright division
13   8
12   9 not coprime, reduce to lowest terms
11   10

So, in the AP Columns of Arithmetic & Algebra, we have two forms of NOT COPRIME, we have the outright-division and we have the reduce to lowest terms. So we have several questions concerning the Prime number in mathematics and the Composite number in mathematics with these AP Columns.

So, now in a Prime number column there is no outright-division and no reduce to lowest terms, that I can see. But is that true? It is obvious we should not have a prime if any of its sub-additions, let me call a horizontal in the AP columns a subaddition, so to be prime there is No Outright Division of a subaddition. But can there exist a number that has no Outright Division but still have Reduce to Lowest Terms-- not coprime. That is the quandary with this new definition of prime. But it does not stop with Primes, for the question extends to Composites.

This is why I like the number 21, for it has two Outright Divisions, but two Reduce to Lowest Terms Division. So here the question is, much like primes, can you have a Composite that has no Outright Division but only Reduce to Lowest Terms Division? Is that possible?

We know 9 has only Outright Division and no Reduce to Lowest Terms Division. Let us check 15.

15   0
14   1
13   2
12   3
11   4
10  5
9    6
8    7

And we see that 15 has both Outright Division and Reduce to Lowest Terms Division 9/6

So, well, I need to know if you can have the possible situation in which there is just Reduce to Lowest Terms Division. I suspect the Conjecture says -- no-- you cannot have Reduce to Lowest Terms all alone without a Outright Division. But I maybe wrong, and that numbers beyond the Infinity Borderline have such species of numbers, and a good reason why those are infinite-numbers where mathematics breaks down and where proofs are never again 100% guaranteed, is because of things like this-- you having numbers that are in a so to speak twilight-zone, reduce to lowest terms but not outright division.

But, well, there probably is an easy proof that you cannot have reduce-to-lowest-terms alone. For there is a quick immediate proof that all Even Composites have an outright-division, but I see no immediate proof all Odd Composites have an outright-division. I do see, however that the Outright Division comes earlier than the Reduce to Lowest Terms, which maybe the way to prove, you cannot have Reduce to Lowest Terms alone.  Or, well, this maybe the Riemann Hypothesis of the 21st Century, knowing full well that the 1800s Riemann Hypothesis was a fake math conjecture.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425028 — Re: AP's stupid conjecture

On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 1:33:58 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, I have a brand new definition of Prime, that involves AP Columns. And it leaves a conjecture open.
> 
> Now let me display the 9 column and the 21 column
> 
> 9   0
> 8   1
> 7   2
> 6   3 full division
> 5   4
> 
> 
> 21   0
> 20   1
> 19   2
> 18   3  outright division
> 17   4
> 16   5
> 15   6  not coprime, reduce to lowest terms
> 14   7  outright division
> 13   8
> 12   9 not coprime, reduce to lowest terms
> 11   10
> 
> So, in the AP Columns of Arithmetic & Algebra, we have two forms of NOT COPRIME, we have the outright-division and we have the reduce to lowest terms. So we have several questions concerning the Prime number in mathematics and the Composite number in mathematics with these AP Columns.
> 
> So, now in a Prime number column there is no outright-division and no reduce to lowest terms, that I can see. But is that true? It is obvious we should not have a prime if any of its sub-additions, let me call a horizontal in the AP columns a subaddition, so to be prime there is No Outright Division of a subaddition. But can there exist a number that has no Outright Division but still have Reduce to Lowest Terms-- not coprime. That is the quandary with this new definition of prime. But it does not stop with Primes, for the question extends to Composites.
> 
> This is why I like the number 21, for it has two Outright Divisions, but two Reduce to Lowest Terms Division. So here the question is, much like primes, can you have a Composite that has no Outright Division but only Reduce to Lowest Terms Division? Is that possible?
> 
> We know 9 has only Outright Division and no Reduce to Lowest Terms Division. Let us check 15.
> 
> 15   0
> 14   1
> 13   2
> 12   3
> 11   4
> 10  5
> 9    6
> 8    7
> 
> And we see that 15 has both Outright Division and Reduce to Lowest Terms Division 9/6
> 
> So, well, I need to know if you can have the possible situation in which there is just Reduce to Lowest Terms Division. I suspect the Conjecture says -- no-- you cannot have Reduce to Lowest Terms all alone without a Outright Division. But I maybe wrong, and that numbers beyond the Infinity Borderline have such species of numbers, and a good reason why those are infinite-numbers where mathematics breaks down and where proofs are never again 100% guaranteed, is because of things like this-- you having numbers that are in a so to speak twilight-zone, reduce to lowest terms but not outright division.
> 
> But, well, there probably is an easy proof that you cannot have reduce-to-lowest-terms alone. For there is a quick immediate proof that all Even Composites have an outright-division, but I see no immediate proof all Odd Composites have an outright-division. I do see, however that the Outright Division comes earlier than the Reduce to Lowest Terms, which maybe the way to prove, you cannot have Reduce to Lowest Terms alone.  Or, well, this maybe the Riemann Hypothesis of the 21st Century, knowing full well that the 1800s Riemann Hypothesis was a fake math conjecture.
> 
> AP

Hey Archie!  Look at your first column if P is prime:

P 0
P-1 1
P-2 2
...
P-n n
...

Just for fun, divide both columns by anything, say m.  You get

P/m - n/m   n/m

Even is n/m is integer, P/m is NEVER integer.  Your conjecture is TRIVIAL.  This
whole "theory of New Era Primes" is not even wrong.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425030 — Re: AP's stupid conjecture

eastside.erik@gmail.com writes:

>On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 1:33:58 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> Alright, I have a brand new definition of Prime, that involves AP Columns.
>> And it leaves a conjecture open.

>Hey Archie!  Look at your first column if P is prime:

>P 0
>P-1 1
>P-2 2
>...
>P-n n
>...

>Just for fun, divide both columns by anything, say m.  You get

>P/m - n/m   n/m

>Even is n/m is integer, P/m is NEVER integer.  Your conjecture is TRIVIAL.
>This whole "theory of New Era Primes" is not even wrong.

Archie has stumbled across a variation of trial division to find primes.
Instead of trying every number n from 2 to P/2 and seeing if n divides P
evenly, he is trying every number n from 2 to P/2 and seeing if (P-n)/n 
divides evenly. However, whenever n divides P evenly, n divides (P-n)
evenly, since (P-n)/n = P/n-n/n = P/n-1. The Sieve of Eratosthenes is
more efficient as it only attempts division by already identified primes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425052 — can a prime or odd composite exist that has just a reduce to lowest term ? Re: Outright Division and Reduce to Lowest Terms Conjecture in AP Columns

Alright, let me display the AP Column of 67 prime that gave me so much troubles before.


On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 3:33:58 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, I have a brand new definition of Prime, that involves AP Columns. And it leaves a conjecture open.
> 
> Now let me display the 9 column and the 21 column
> 
> 9   0
> 8   1
> 7   2
> 6   3 full division
> 5   4
> 
> 
> 21   0
> 20   1
> 19   2
> 18   3  outright division
> 17   4
> 16   5
> 15   6  not coprime, reduce to lowest terms
> 14   7  outright division
> 13   8
> 12   9 not coprime, reduce to lowest terms
> 11   10
> 


For 67 we have

67   0
66   1
65   2
64   3
63   4
62   5
61    6
60   7
59   8
58   9
57  10
56  11
55  12
54  13
53  14
52   15
51   16
50   17
49   18
48   19
47   20
46   21
45   22
44   23
43   24
42   25
41   26
40  27
39  28
38  29
37  30
36  31
35  32
34  33

And going through I see no Outright division and I see no Coprime to reduce to lowest terms

So the conjecture I make with this Extended Definition of being Prime-- is there ever the case where a Prime has no Outright division, but still has a coprime to reduce to lowest terms. And also, for the Odd Composites, is there ever a situation where it is composite with no Outright division but Coprimes ready to be reduced to lowest terms?



> So, in the AP Columns of Arithmetic & Algebra, we have two forms of NOT COPRIME, we have the outright-division and we have the reduce to lowest terms. So we have several questions concerning the Prime number in mathematics and the Composite number in mathematics with these AP Columns.
> 
> So, now in a Prime number column there is no outright-division and no reduce to lowest terms, that I can see. But is that true? It is obvious we should not have a prime if any of its sub-additions, let me call a horizontal in the AP columns a subaddition, so to be prime there is No Outright Division of a subaddition. But can there exist a number that has no Outright Division but still have Reduce to Lowest Terms-- not coprime. That is the quandary with this new definition of prime. But it does not stop with Primes, for the question extends to Composites.
> 
> This is why I like the number 21, for it has two Outright Divisions, but two Reduce to Lowest Terms Division. So here the question is, much like primes, can you have a Composite that has no Outright Division but only Reduce to Lowest Terms Division? Is that possible?
> 
> We know 9 has only Outright Division and no Reduce to Lowest Terms Division. Let us check 15.
> 
> 15   0
> 14   1
> 13   2
> 12   3
> 11   4
> 10  5
> 9    6
> 8    7
> 
> And we see that 15 has both Outright Division and Reduce to Lowest Terms Division 9/6
> 

In odd composites the Outright Division looks to always come first and then any coprimes to reduce to lowest terms come later. In Even Composites the horizontal add shows immediately the number is even such as say 100

100  0
99    1
98    2  outright division

then later we have coprime reduce to lowest terms


> So, well, I need to know if you can have the possible situation in which there is just Reduce to Lowest Terms Division. I suspect the Conjecture says -- no-- you cannot have Reduce to Lowest Terms all alone without a Outright Division. But I maybe wrong, and that numbers beyond the Infinity Borderline have such species of numbers, and a good reason why those are infinite-numbers where mathematics breaks down and where proofs are never again 100% guaranteed, is because of things like this-- you having numbers that are in a so to speak twilight-zone, reduce to lowest terms but not outright division.
> 
> But, well, there probably is an easy proof that you cannot have reduce-to-lowest-terms alone. For there is a quick immediate proof that all Even Composites have an outright-division, but I see no immediate proof all Odd Composites have an outright-division. I do see, however that the Outright Division comes earlier than the Reduce to Lowest Terms, which maybe the way to prove, you cannot have Reduce to Lowest Terms alone.  Or, well, this maybe the Riemann Hypothesis of the 21st Century, knowing full well that the 1800s Riemann Hypothesis was a fake math conjecture.
> 

Easy to prove that Even Composites all have an outright division. But how to prove that Odd Composites must always have a Outright Division and no odd composite has just a coprime reduce to lowest terms. How to prove no prime cannot have a reduce to lowest term?

What this new extended definition of Prime does is show us how integral is the concept of coprime along with prime.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425063 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:

>Re: AP's stupid conjecture

<snip more failure>

So how is your logorrhea doing?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web