Request Underwood Dudley to post a Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes

[Archimedes Plutonium]

I understand Mr. Dudley and Mr Halmos are editors of The American
Mathematical Monthly. I respectfully request information whether
Euclid's Infinitude of Primes proof has ever appeared in that journal?
Please, date and page, thanks in advance

Please, Mr. Dudley, since you bought a copy of my book Plutonium Atom
Universe (the purpose of which would not surprize me), and you have a
bestseller on the market--which in my opinion should have never been
written. Please post your proof of Euclid's Infinitude of Primes, for
which all working people in math worth their weight in salt, can do.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

In article <3l1ku0$q...@bubba.ucc.okstate.edu>
David Ullrich <ull...@math.okstate.edu> writes:

> With apologies to the universe for wasting bandwidth: What's
> all this about the proof of the infinitude of primes? You don't believe
> the result, you think the result's true but the standard proofs are
> wrong, you think that math journals should be publishing papers by
> colleagues of yours who died millennia ago, or what? I'm missing the point...
> Dave Ullrich

I am waiting for the college students to return. Stay tuned next
week. The result (IP) is true, but the standard proofs are wrong. In
fact, most every book that has IP, that proof is invalid. What is the
point? The point is that since Gina Kolata, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet
cannot give a valid proof and/or see that all renditions are invalid of
Euclid's Infinitude of Primes, they cannot give a 100 page mishmesh of
FLT. The action starts next Tues., stay tuned. Because if a student
asks you to give a proof of IP, and you did not follow these
newsgroups, well, you may be caught with your horse blinders on.

[David Ullrich]

[David Ullrich]

Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
>
> In article <3l1ku0$q...@bubba.ucc.okstate.edu>
> David Ullrich <ull...@math.okstate.edu> writes:
>
> > With apologies to the universe for wasting bandwidth: What's
> > all this about the proof of the infinitude of primes? You don't believe
> > the result, you think the result's true but the standard proofs are
> > wrong, you think that math journals should be publishing papers by
> > colleagues of yours who died millennia ago, or what? I'm missing the point...
> > Dave Ullrich
>
> I am waiting for the college students to return. Stay tuned next
> week. The result (IP) is true, but the standard proofs are wrong.

Oh

> In
> fact, most every book that has IP, that proof is invalid. What is the
> point? The point is that since Gina Kolata, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet
> cannot give a valid proof and/or see that all renditions are invalid of
> Euclid's Infinitude of Primes, they cannot give a 100 page mishmesh of
> FLT. The action starts next Tues., stay tuned. Because if a student
> asks you to give a proof of IP, and you did not follow these
> newsgroups, well, you may be caught with your horse blinders on.

Thanks,
Dave Ullrich

[Archimedes Plutonium]

In article <3l4mr9$1a...@bubba.ucc.okstate.edu>
David Ullrich <ull...@math.okstate.edu> writes:

> The result (IP) is true, but the standard proofs are wrong.

This is not 100%. Euclid's Infinitude of Primes is so-so true if you
take the Naturals as finite integers. But if you see Naturals = Adics =
Infinite Integers, no primes whatsoever exists.

Next Tues. when I start posting invalid proofs of Euclid's Infinitude
of Primes, it is understood that within the old ill-defined Natural
numbers, where Naturals = Finite numbers. In other words, invalid
proofs within an invalid system.

This is hard to swallow, especially if after a whole life of doing
math and believing that prime numbers are as near to certain truth as
you can get. Come to find out that the definition of primeness was ill
defined.

I can give a very good analogy. Newtonian Mechanics and the
measurement of energy. Within NM, fuzzy physicists often made errors of
calculations. Compare fuzzy math people who give a invalid proof of IP.
Along comes QM, and clear QMers would say it matters not about fuzzy
NMers and clear NMers, both, when you get down to the nitty gritty,
both are wrong in comparison to QM.

This is the present situation in math with Natural Numbers. What I am
going to post on Tues, even though I believe no prime Natural Numbers
exist at all. But, what I am going to post is to show that even those
within the old ill defined Naturals = Finite numbers, most active math
people could not even give a logically math valid proof.

The purpose? Simple. If most math people like Wiles, Ribet can not
even see a valid IP, then they are hopelessly lost in a 100 page math
offering.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Well, Underwood Dudley, needs to go to his affiliated University student newspaper and publish that he is sorry for teaching brainwashed propaganda that the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it was a Oval all along.

We make students pay the price of mistakes by grading them. It is time for Dudley to pay the price of mistakes by apologies to all their students that Dudley was a mindless fool of geometry thinking that a single cone had 2 axes of symmetry to produce a ellipse, when it only has 1 axis of symmetry.

This is especially important for Dudley since he is advanced in age to make the published apology. My apologies to Peter Swinnerton-Dyer for I just now see he passed away in 2018.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics