Obviously you are leading towards (n-1)/n tends to 1.0 as n tends to infinite, but that doesn't prove that all primes are odd as a counter example can be found.
By your reasoning you could state that there are no natural numbers less than a googol, since as (n-googol)/n tends to 1.0 as n tends to infinite.
If 100% does not equal 'all', as has been claimed, then the difference must be a set of measure zero.
This also requires 100% to be defined in terms of measure theory. I doubt whether such a definition exists.
Confounding everyday words such as 100% with the precise concepts of measure theory is completely unnecessary and invites misunderstanding.
ThudanBlunder seems not to have read what he was commenting. Sorry, read before patronizing.
Okey, where were we...? And let's stay on topic as far as possible.
There are an infinit amount of primes, that is easily proven, so we can continue as far as we like. Trillions, quadrillions, even zillions of primes and 1/n gets smaller and smaller. If we break the last barrier and think of all primes there is, all infinite of them, we have 1/inf which gives zero as a result, right?
Hence the conclusion that of all the primes there exist is 0%, not approximatly 0% but exactly zero, nilch, noll, nothing percent of them even. So there is no even primes, every prime is odd. Q.E.D.
This is not a play with words. The result may be *odd* (!), *even* (!) astonishing but yet not a laugh from me (of that reason).
This is not the last posting in this thread. I'm not through yet.
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo, wrong I'm afraid. What exactly is this 'barrier' you're 'breaking through'?
There are an infinit amount of primes, that is easily proven, so we can continue as far as we like. Trillions, quadrillions, even zillions of primes and 1/n gets smaller and smaller. If we break the last barrier and think of all primes there is, all infinite of them, we have 1/inf which gives zero as a result, right?
Read my first post above. To make a statement like
Q( { p is odd } ) = 1
needs a probability measure Q on the set of primes p. If this is to be got from a limit of statements
Q( { p is odd } given { p is one of the first n primes } ) = 1 - 1/n
then Q needs to be uniform on the set of primes. But no uniform probability measure exists on an infinite countable set.
To see why this is true, suppose P is a uniform probability measure on the set N of natural numbers 1, 2, 3, 4,...
Let P( { 1 } ) =: c a number between 0 and 1 inclusive. Since P is uniform P( { n } ) = c for all natural numbers n. So for every k in N we have, since measures are finitely additive:
k*c = P( { 1, 2, ... , k } ) < P( N ) = 1
and it follows that c = 0. But now, since measures are countably additive:
1 = P( N ) = sum_{k=1 to infinity} P( { k } ) = sum_{k=1 to infinity} 0 = 0
a contradiction. So no such P exists.
I thought also Fat Lady made a very good point with the googol, although what (s)he said wasn't probabilistic.
Anyway, I assume that by now you're joking with us!
- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
Originally posted by FabianFnasI can "prove" that no prime except 1 is divisible by itself, by a derivative of your technique.
ThudanBlunder seems not to have read what he was commenting. Sorry, read before patronizing.
Okey, where were we...? And let's stay on topic as far as possible.
There are an infinit amount of primes, that is easily proven, so we can continue as far as we like. Trillions, quadrillions, even zillions of primes and 1/n gets smaller and smaller. If we b ...[text shortened]... from me (of that reason).
This is not the last posting in this thread. I'm not through yet.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI thought that was standard knowledge. Here's a proof:
There are an infinit amount of primes, that is easily proven,
Originally posted by ThudanBlunder
I don't believe you. Please prove it.
http://www.ultrasolo.com/Maths/Proof/Infinity%20of%20Primes.htm
Originally posted by FabianFnasWhen I present this problem, or should I say, this paradox in a party, or at a coffee break som looks at me with astonishments, nearly to think I've done a major breakthrough in mathematics, earning the Nobel prize in Mathematics or something. Most people can't imagine the flaw in my reasoning, but still there is a flaw.
This is not the last posting in this thread. I'm not through yet.
This puzzle, presented, is not the puzzle that it seems to be presented. Merely it is a puzzle about - where is my reasoning wrong? That is the final question.
I've seen some tries to explain to me where I reason wrong. Like "100% of the primes" is not the same as "all the primes", invoking theory of probability, deep set theory, and other attempts. But no one has yet explained in layman’s terms where the error is in the reasoning.
I say, every prime is odd, and I 'prove' it despite the fact that there is an counter exemple, i.e. 2.
Is this a real paradox? Or where is the simple error in the reasoning?
Originally posted by FabianFnasGood God you're an idiot. I mean really. I've shown exactly where your error in reasoning is multiple times.
When I present this problem, or should I say, this paradox in a party, or at a coffee break som looks at me with astonishments, nearly to think I've done a major breakthrough in mathematics, earning the Nobel prize in Mathematics or something. Most people can't imagine the flaw in my reasoning, but still there is a flaw.
This puzzle, presented, is not ...[text shortened]... xemple, i.e. 2.
Is this a real paradox? Or where is the simple error in the reasoning?
Originally posted by FabianFnasA - Set of all prime numbers
When I present this problem, or should I say, this paradox in a party, or at a coffee break som looks at me with astonishments, nearly to think I've done a major breakthrough in mathematics, earning the Nobel prize in Mathematics or something. Most people can't imagine the flaw in my reasoning, but still there is a flaw.
This puzzle, presented, is not ...[text shortened]... xemple, i.e. 2.
Is this a real paradox? Or where is the simple error in the reasoning?
B - Set of all odd numbers
A intersected with ~B is equal to the singleton {2}. For all prime numbers to be odd it should have been equal to an empty set.
Originally posted by XanthosNZNow, Xantoz, You might have brain but you don't have social competence. Doesn't that bother you?
Good God you're an idiot. I mean really.
You repeat time afer time that you know - but you have no ability to show it in laymans terms so everyone could understand it.
Do you really have that strong urge to show everyone how intelligent you are? And yet fail to do so, so completely?
When your strongest argument in the matter is that you think I'm an idiot - is there where your argument lack of intelligence? Then I am sorry for you.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps your not, but when youre strike my face with personal common rudeness, then I suspect something is missing at your personalite. I think it is called social competence.
Is this the reason that yo don't have any friends in real life? Sorry for you. I have never met somone more verbally aggressive and more negativistic of everything in my entire life. Perhaps you have to work on your personal qualities instead of showing such disrespect to others.
I suggest you read my last posting once more and then come up with something really intelligent for a starter.
I hereby put you on my ignore list. And this stops any conversation between you and me until you show even slight of human dignity.