Forwarded message:
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 18:27:39 +0100 From: Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@stud.uni-muenchen.de> Subject: Re: Goldbach's Conjecture (fwd)
Jim Choate wrote:
What started this whole enquiry for me was the realization that the multiplication identity axiom is related to the definition of a prime. Then add on top of that the reason we exclude 1 is so we don't have to write '...except for the prime 1' on the end of lots of number theory (re Richard Feynman's comment during the Challenger Investigation). It was the realization that if we go ahead and include 1 so the axioms are in line with each other (and use our cut&paste feature for the '...1...') then perhaps it would provide a more consistent base and just maybe some of the extant problems in number theory might become solvable in other ways. My original
If you 'define' 1 to be 'prime', you are 'defining' Goldbach's conjecture 'away'!
Duh. I'll give you a hint, more than that single problem goes away. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------