AP's 401st book of science// Primes were never a legitimate concept in math or science-- but a hallucination If nothing else, the purpose of this book is to wean all new talent in mathematics, wean them away from a wasted life that is engrossed

[Archimedes Plutonium]

AP's 401st book of science// Primes were never a legitimate concept in math or science-- but a hallucination

If nothing else, the purpose of this book is to wean all new talent in mathematics, wean them away from a wasted life that is engrossed with primes of Old Math. Someone wrote a book called "Prime Obsession" which to me could just as well been called Prime Schizoid Waste of Time.

And so, my aim in this book is to alert all new talented mathematicians-- math is full of better things to do than to waste it on primes.


Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 8, 2022, 9:35:37 PM (16 hours ago)



to

Well, the infinity borderline is 10^604, with algebraic completion at 10^1208. So the question is the 783 is in the completion zone and how many more are there from 10^604 to 10^1208.

Then, what we do is ask how many primes in format of 99999....991, starting with 991.

The intriguing question is whether we can get some sort of "equal cardinality" of numbers from 1 to 10^604 and 10^1208. There is nothing of interest after 10^1208 when 10^604 is infinity borderline.

AP, King of Science, especially physics chemistry
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 8, 2022, 11:39:30 PM (14 hours ago)



to
Ask how many primes of form 1999....99 starting with 19.

Ask how many primes of form 2999.....99.

How many primes of form 1111.... 11 starting with 11.

All from 1 to 10^604 to 10^1208, to see if there is some quantity pattern.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 8, 2022, 11:49:08 PM (14 hours ago)



to sci.math
On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 8:56:37 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 11:49:08 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 8:56:37 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > "henh...@gmail.com" <henh...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > primes of form ( "3's followed by 1" )
> > >
> > >
> > > 31, 331, 3331,
> > > 33331, 333331,
> > > 3 333 331,
> > > 33 333 331,
> > > 333333333333333331,
> > > 3333333333333333333333333333333333333331,
> > > 33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333331
> > >
> > > --------------- is this list COMPLETE ?
> > No.
> > > --------------- if not, how big is the next Number ?
> > Let's name these by the number of consecutive 3s. A calculation using
> > gp/pari suggests there are primes with these numbers of 3s (before the
> > 1):
> >
> > 1
> > 2
> > 3
> > 4
> > 5
> > 6
> > 7
> > 17
> > 39
> > 49 (the last in your list)
> > 59
> > 77
> > 100
> > 150
> > 318
> > 381
> > 783
> >
> > I would expect there are more.
> >
> > --
> > Ben.

There 16 from 1 to infinity borderline 10^604. Are there going to be some symmetry from 10^604 to 10^1208. Will there be 16 in there also?

Of course AP does not accept the concept of "prime" of Old Math for the true numbers of math are the Decimal Grid Numbers for "prime" is a mockery of the idea that there is no division well defined on Counting Numbers. All this work on primes in Old Math is hallucinatory fabrication, but, by realizing infinity has a borderline, there may still be some "pattern" involved in the hallucinatory drug addict sector of math research, the gangue ward of mathematics.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 9, 2022, 12:40 AM (13 hours ago)



to sci.math

Funny, I was looking for the word ganja not the rock gangue. Anyway.

It is a marvelous Logical Oversight, or Undersight of Old Math.

There they were, they had Counting Numbers well defined to addition and multiplication, as seen in there group ring field theory-whatever.

But they overlooked a horrid logical loophole. That Counting Numbers are NOT well defined as per division.

To be well defined, a operator must stay perfectly inside the set of numbers it is operating on. So that any Counting Number is well defined to addition as well as multiplication. But the moment you try to include division, you get numbers that do not exist in the Counting Numbers such as 1/2 or 1/3, etc. This means that a concept of prime on Counting Numbers is not viable, and is ILL defined. This is why there is never a Pattern to primes, because it is a sick definition, with no grounding. This is why primes in Old Math never have a formula, for a formula exists on concepts that are Well Defined, not sicko defined.

For example, suppose I said define a concept of the operation of square root on Counting Numbers. Some numbers have a square root like that of 4, but most do not have a square root that stays within being only Counting Numbers. Hence the operation square root is ILL defined on Counting Numbers, and what is the point, the meaning of asking some bullshit question of a Square Root root formula for Counting Numbers, or asking for a Square Root Numbers of form 100...00000 with 100 the first, the second being 10000. There is no point in asking questions of Square Root Numbers because they are ILL defined on Counting Numbers.

The true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers, and they are Well Defined for addition, subtraction (obeying the axiom you cannot subtract more than available), multiplication and division. They have NO Primes. They have a pattern in addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. You can write formulas in addition, subtraction, multiplication and division that captures every number in the 10 decimal Grid system. You cannot do that in the Old Math silliness bs of ILL defined this and that.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 9, 2022, 1:26 AM (12 hours ago)



to sci.math
So, what I am looking for here, is not a pattern in primes, for the concept was never legitimate in the first place. As I said -- for a WELL defined operator on Counting Numbers, gives back a Counting Number. Something like 7/2 is impossible to return a Counting Number. And so the concept of Prime was as schizophrenic as someone in hospital with that ailment.

And all the time spent by every mathematician of the past history, spent on prime concept was "schizophrenia time". Just like all the time spent in biology on the 4 Humors, was time thrown away.

So why is AP asking a question of how many primes between 1 and 10^604 and 10^1208? I am asking that question because it may turn out that putting boundaries on enquiry over a schizophrenic concept of "prime", may actually turn up a pattern of schizophrenia of math. It may turn out that the schizoid math professors in what a book titled "Prime Obsession" which should have the title "Worst Brain Stem Dead Mathematicians Ever". It may turn out that there is a pattern of Schizophrenia in Old Math prime concept. And it may facilitate the healing of many--most-- brain stem dead mathematics professors. Of course, not Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, John Stillwell, Thomas Hales, incurable brain stem dead mathematicians.

AP


Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 9, 2022, 1:22 PM



to sci.math

So, 31 is prime and so is 41 prime. If being prime is a legitimate concept, not a mindless halfbaked idea because Counting Numbers have no operation of division. For a legitimate operation of division would return a Counting Number every time N/M = P, where N,M,P are Counting Numbers. For example N*M = P and N+M = P where N,M,P are Counting Numbers. In division, sometimes P is a Counting Number whenever N/M occurs.

So, a test of the legitimacy of primes in Old Math.

Both 31 and 41 are primes in Old Math.

Then, it is plausible to ask, there should be the same amount of primes in 3333....33331 as there are in 44444....4441.

We can only use the borderline of infinity 1*10^604 and its Algebraic Completion 1*10^1208.

A list has been given for partial 3333...3331.

Now 51 is also prime in Old Math, so we can do the same for 6666....66661 and 7777....77771.

And so, the enquiry therein, is that if "prime" was a legitimate concept, the cardinality of the set of primes from 1 to 1^10^604 and from 1*10^604 to 1*10^1208, that cardinality should be the same for these five types of Old Math Primes 31, 41, 61,71. I have no doubt what the answer is going to be-- the cardinality is not the same for anyone of these 31,41,61,71.

And the reason none are the same is the concept of Primes in Old Math was a concept struck from delusions for Counting Numbers have NO OPERATION OF DIVISION that is well defined. Multiplication and Add does.

Even subtraction is well defined on Counting Numbers, provided that axiom --- you can never subtract more than what is available which eliminates the existence of negative numbers.

So, get out the computer. List all the primes of form 333..331, 444..4441, 666..661, 777..771 from 1 to 1*10^1208.

If Old Math primes was a legitimate concept, then the cardinality of those should be the same. None are, means primes is a shithead concept.

AP



Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 9, 2022, 1:36 PM



to sci.math
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 1:22:13 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 1:26:00 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > So, what I am looking for here, is not a pattern in primes, for the concept was never legitimate in the first place. As I said -- for a WELL defined operator on Counting Numbers, gives back a Counting Number. Something like 7/2 is impossible to return a Counting Number. And so the concept of Prime was as schizophrenic as someone in hospital with that ailment.
> >
> > And all the time spent by every mathematician of the past history, spent on prime concept was "schizophrenia time". Just like all the time spent in biology on the 4 Humors, was time thrown away.
> >
> > So why is AP asking a question of how many primes between 1 and 10^604 and 10^1208? I am asking that question because it may turn out that putting boundaries on enquiry over a schizophrenic concept of "prime", may actually turn up a pattern of schizophrenia of math. It may turn out that the schizoid math professors in what a book titled "Prime Obsession" which should have the title "Worst Brain Stem Dead Mathematicians Ever". It may turn out that there is a pattern of Schizophrenia in Old Math prime concept. And it may facilitate the healing of many--most-- brain stem dead mathematics professors. Of course, not Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, John Stillwell, Thomas Hales, incurable brain stem dead mathematicians.
> >
> So, 31 is prime and so is 41 prime. If being prime is a legitimate concept, not a mindless halfbaked idea because Counting Numbers have no operation of division. For a legitimate operation of division would return a Counting Number every time N/M = P, where N,M,P are Counting Numbers. For example N*M = P and N+M = P where N,M,P are Counting Numbers. In division, sometimes P is a Counting Number whenever N/M occurs.
>
> So, a test of the legitimacy of primes in Old Math.
>
> Both 31 and 41 are primes in Old Math.
>
> Then, it is plausible to ask, there should be the same amount of primes in 3333....33331 as there are in 44444....4441.
>
> We can only use the borderline of infinity 1*10^604 and its Algebraic Completion 1*10^1208.
>
> A list has been given for partial 3333...3331.
>
> Now 51 (typo) is also prime in Old Math, so we can do the same for 6666....66661 and 7777....77771.

Now 61,

> And so, the enquiry therein, is that if "prime" was a legitimate concept, the cardinality of the set of primes from 1 to 1^10^604 and from 1*10^604 to 1*10^1208, that cardinality should be the same for these five types of Old Math Primes 31, 41, 61,71. I have no doubt what the answer is going to be-- the cardinality is not the same for anyone of these 31,41,61,71.
>
> And the reason none are the same is the concept of Primes in Old Math was a concept struck from delusions for Counting Numbers have NO OPERATION OF DIVISION that is well defined. Multiplication and Add does.
>
> Even subtraction is well defined on Counting Numbers, provided that axiom --- you can never subtract more than what is available which eliminates the existence of negative numbers.
>
> So, get out the computer. List all the primes of form 333..331, 444..4441, 666..661, 777..771 from 1 to 1*10^1208.
>
> If Old Math primes was a legitimate concept, then the cardinality of those should be the same. None are, means primes is a shithead concept.
>

So what went wrong in Mathematics history that no-one could see or understand, you have to have a WELL DEFINED concept of prime, based on the idea that N/M = P for all N,M,P as Counting Numbers, and then you can say--- here--- here is a concept of Prime.

Why was that overlooked, for surely we had obnoxious algebra of Galois Group, Ring and Field theory that is still obnoxious and rampant even today, and where they play these hallucination games all the time. Games wherein they define a concept, a concept that is half-baked.

So where in math history was the mindless idiotic schizophrenic plunge into "primes" become a disease, for there never was any honest use of primes. They never had a pattern. For how could they have a pattern when they are illegitimate.

But in modern times there has risen a use, a cryptography use, that computers are used wastrel-- wastrelly used to find these illegitimate numbers called primes, used in commerce and spying.

But that is okay, to use math, illegitimate math for commerce and spying.

But in science, there is no concept of prime outside of the pandering idiots of mathematics.

There is no concept of primes in physics-- there is a concept of even and odd, but never primes. Nor chemistry, nor biology. If there never is a concept of prime in physics, in chemistry, in math, then there never is a legitimate concept of prime in science.

This will be my 401st book of science. Is 401 a decadent decayed lousy mindless prime of Old Math???

AP, King of Science, especially physics-chemistry