
Re: Prime Generalization Conjecture
Posted:
Jun 27, 2009 7:49 AM


Musatov worte: Musatov wrote: > Musatov wrote: > Richard Heathfield wrote: > > Musatov said: > > > > > On Jun 26, 1:20 pm, John H. Guillory <jo...@communicomm.com> > > > wrote: > > <snip> > > >> So would that make 3.25 a prime number? > > > > > > A decimal number is not by classical definition prime. > > > > Numbers aren't decimal. They're numbers. Decimal is a system for > > /representing/ numbers textually. > > > > > > > Though if > > > you have an idea of a decimal equivalent of primality, I would > > > love to hear it. > > > > It's a meaningless concept. Primality has nothing to do with > > representation. > > > >  > > Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk> > > Email: http://www. +rjh@ > > Forged article? See > > http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/usenet/comp.lang.c/msgauth.php > > "Usenet is a strange place"  dmr 29 July 1999 > > Dear Mr. Heathfield, > > I agree with you in the classical proof sense primality is as much > governed by physics as it is counting numbers we choose to represent > quantities. > > My intention with this reference is providing a means to interface > between prime numbers to the left of the decimal point and decimal > numbers to the right of the decimal point. Perhaps a system where 3.17 > refers to two primes, and this sense I am speaking mostly toward > computation, but again I assert, numbers to the left or right of the > decimal, are still just numbers. > > I have always been fascinated by this notion: > > Numerically, our representations do not appear uniform instinctually, > to me at least. > > Here is an example. > > If we say, "What 10 is to 20 is not what 2.2 is to 3.3," is there any > truth in proportion to justify this assertion in physics or > mathematics? > > We are simply counting. > > 10 is to 20 > ...is... > 20 is 2x 10 > > 2.2 is to 3.3 > ...is... > 3.3 is 1.5x 2.2 > ...or... > 1/2 of 2.2+2.2=3.3 > ...or... > 1/2 of 2.2=1.1*3=3.33 > > 1 and 1/2 of 2.2=3.3 > ...or... > 1.5 of 2.2=3.3 > > So there is a split of > > 1/2+2/5+3/5=15/10 > .5+.4+.6=1.5 > > ...And... > > 1/2*2/5*3/5=x > x=5/10*4/10*6/10=120/10=1.2 > > .5*.4*.6=1.2 > > Theorem: use of a set of given quantities. > > Rule: adding the set produces at least the product. > > Proof(1a): 1 apple + 2 apples + 3 apples=6 apples. > > Proof(1b):1 apple * 2 apples * 3 apples=6 apples. > > Proof(2a): 5 apples + 4 apples + 6 apples =15 apples. > > Proof(2b): 5 apples * 4 apples * 6 apples=120 apples. > > Contradiction: in the above example the sum=1.5 and the product=1.2. > > Fallacy: Multiplying quantities of items does not shrink them. This > applies to measurements and transforms. > > But as we count from 1 to 2 and then 2 to 3 > > 10/1.1 = 9.0909091 > 20/2.2 = 9.0909091 > 30/3.3 = 9.0909091 > > What 1 > ...is to... > 10 > ...is... > What 2.2 is 22 > > Proof: 1.1/10=.11 > 2.2/20=.1 > 2.2/22=.11 > > Martin Musatov

