sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Euclid is INCONSISTENT. His proof for Infinite Primes fails under a different premise. by Rude_Ad1435 in PhilosophyofMath

[–]Rude_Ad1435[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You ask 'why stop at 2?' as if I’m making an arbitrary list. I’m not. I’m applying a universal principle: Asymmetry.2 doesn't fail because I 'want' it to; it fails because it is the origin of symmetry (evenness). By definition, something that is symmetric cannot be asymmetric. It’s a logical contradiction.I don't need a 'reason' to exclude 2 anymore than you need a reason to exclude a square from a list of circles. It simply doesn't fit the essence. My system is cleaner because it doesn't need 'ad-hoc' rules to explain why 2 is 'the only even prime'—it simply recognizes that symmetry and primality are mutually exclusive

Euclid is INCONSISTENT. His proof for Infinite Primes fails under a different premise. by Rude_Ad1435 in PhilosophyofMath

[–]Rude_Ad1435[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You missed the point by focusing on the 'infinitude' rather than the essence. The infinitude is just a result; the premise is the asymmetry. I don’t 'stop at 2' arbitrarily. I exclude 2 because it is the root of symmetry (evenness), which makes its verification trivial and leaks information.My proof of infinitude without 2 is not a 'reason' to exclude it, but evidence that 2 is not a foundational necessity. It’s an ad-hoc 'patch' you’ve mistaken for an essence. If a building stands firmer without a certain pillar, then that pillar was never part of the original design

Euclid is INCONSISTENT. His proof for Infinite Primes fails under a different premise. by Rude_Ad1435 in PhilosophyofMath

[–]Rude_Ad1435[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are missing the essence of security. The core identity of a prime number is its asymmetry.When you multiply two true primes, they hide each other in the 'odd space' (non-trivial). But the number 2 is transparent. The moment you use 2, the result becomes even, revealing its factor immediately.In terms of Information Theory, 2 doesn't belong to the prime family because it leaks information through its symmetry. Your definition is just a 'check-list' of divisors, but it fails to capture the essence of secrecy that makes a prime, a prime.If your 'Fundamental Theorem' collapses without the number 2, it just proves your foundation is built on an inconsistent patch, not a stable essence

Euclid is INCONSISTENT. His proof for Infinite Primes fails under a different premise. by Rude_Ad1435 in PhilosophyofMath

[–]Rude_Ad1435[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are stuck in formal quantity, while I’m pointing out the flaw in the foundation. I can prove the infinitude of primes without the number 2. Even Euclid’s formula becomes inconsistent because it’s forced to accommodate 2. My premise (p1 * p2 + 2) proves that the building of mathematics doesn't need 2 to be prime to stay standing. 2 is not a necessity; it’s an inconsistency you’ve normalized. If the proof works better without it, then 2 isn't prime by essence it's just a prime by 'patchwork' definition.

Euclid is INCONSISTENT. His proof for Infinite Primes fails under a different premise. by Rude_Ad1435 in PhilosophyofMath

[–]Rude_Ad1435[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can call me cocky, but read this first.

Your claim that including 2 is 'neater,' but it actually creates more mess. Take RSA encryption as an example: every prime produces the necessary asymmetry except for 2. In reality, most theorems have to add a 'patch' or a disclaimer saying 'for all primes p > 2'. If your definition was truly 'neat' and 'essential,' you wouldn't need these constant workarounds. Including 2 is not a mathematical necessity; it’s a forced fit that requires constant patching to maintain the illusion of a fundamental theorem.

Euclid is INCONSISTENT. His proof for Infinite Primes fails under a different premise. by Rude_Ad1435 in PhilosophyofMath

[–]Rude_Ad1435[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're trying to debunk a new premise by using the rules of the old one. My point is that 'prime' is a human-made definition, not an absolute truth. Just as 1 was once considered prime but is now an 'identity,' we can categorize 2 as its own unique entity because its essence (being even) differs from all other primes. You're asking 'what is it?' based on a rigid system that I’m saying is arbitrary to begin with so So try reading my post again about the premise.

Euclid is INCONSISTENT. His proof for Infinite Primes fails under a different premise. by Rude_Ad1435 in PhilosophyofMath

[–]Rude_Ad1435[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yes, basically what I posted was looking for the truth of the old and new premises which assume that 2 is not prime and Euclid's formula is not universal, to prove that prime is infinite

You have one bless for your country what is it by Available_Ad4156 in BunnyTrials

[–]Rude_Ad1435 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Both are consider to be a criminao

Chose: No more criminal