User talk:Superdeterminism

Speedy deletion of Earth Planetary Air-Conditioner; solving Global-Warming

A tag has been placed on Earth Planetary Air-Conditioner; solving Global-Warming, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Wikipedia is not original research

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ronbo76 05:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Global Warming Solutions

A tag has been placed on Global Warming Solutions, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This is an essay that promotes particular points of view, and is not encyclopedic in tone. It is also a duplicate of the article above that is also proposed for speedy deletion.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Realkyhick 05:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2007

Please stop immediately. If you continue to vandalise pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Bipedalism, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Denny 17:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This account appears to be used by Archimedes Plutonium (talk). — Loadmaster 19:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki, and AP

No one seems actually to be telling you what is going on. I'll fill you in on some background. Please be aware, I have zero authority around here, other than the respect that is due to /any/ editor who plays by the rules. Firstly, we are attempting to make the article about AP conform to the various policies and guidelines of Wiki. Amongst those, is that the biography of a living person (BLP) is NOT owned to any significant extent by the subject of the biography, ie AP's article is not owned by AP. Therefore /your/ requests to have it deleted are going to have no particualr weight, unless you can demonstrate that it fails to meet the many policies that already exist. In general an article that does not met those policies would be edited and improved in preference to being deleted.

To my mind the AfD on the AP article is partly concerned with the extent to which Usenet, the Internet, and so on, can be regarded as primary sources in their own right.

My advice to you is to accept that the article will (probably) exist, but recognise that it will not be a soapbox for your theories. I suggest that you object to those biographical details and attacks that you disagree with, and that are unsupported by external documentation, and perhaps accept that an article about AP may not be as enthusiastic as you would hope. I did think that your proposal for the article wasn't too bad, but you need to include links to your theory rather than having them on Wiki. And in fairness, most of the links to Usenet do need to stay. Cheers Greglocock 11:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Francis

Hi. Regarding the Eric Francis article. Please review WP:BLP the article must be properly sourced and all negative commentary and criticism must be especially well sourced. This is just as true in the article about Francis as it is in the article about you. - Ehheh 20:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged.

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but if you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, attribution, and autobiography.

For more details, please read the conflict of interest guideline. Thank you! Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 04:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fixing the flawed Wikipedia entry on Euclid's Infinitude of Primes proof

If you think this guy has done a bang-up job of fixing the proof of an infinite number of prime numbers, I'd recommend you bring it up on the talk page, instead of just edit warring with someone who disagrees. Maybe you'll explain it, cite the ref clearly, and get some others to endorse the idea; but as it stands, it looks a bit radical, and the source may not be regarded as reliable. Dicklyon 07:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been discussing and debating this topic since 1993, with thousands of illogical responses.

You have to win the argument externally and have the result published in verifiable reliable secondary sources before it becomes suitable material for wikipedia. Wikipedia's policies are clear; it is not the place to push your original research, even if you turn out to be correct and the rest of the world's mathematicians wrong. Dicklyon 14:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics has lived with a Incorrect Infinitude of Primes proof since Euclid. I corrected it. And I understand it may take decades before others realize the truth of what I said.

Ultimately we are faced with posting a Wrong Infinitude of Primes proof, which is what Wikipedia currently is displaying.

Or, we can display a true Infinitude of Primes proof. And where readers see a TRUE proof.

Most mathematicians who have given a proof of IP in a book prior to this, are now faced with embarrassement. Embarrassement in that they could not even give a valid proof.

But because they are embarrassed, does that mean we should keep and broadcast a False proof in Wikipedia?

Readers, above all else deserve the truth, regardless of whether it embarrasses the establishment.

If Karl Heuer is an editor of Wikipedia, then I recommend that he edit this page of Euclid's Infinitude of Primes, for he is one of the few people that recognizes the truth of this logical argument.

--- User:Superdeterminism 10 April after being reverted ---

This is what Wikipedia used to have in year 2006 for the IP proof:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Prime number. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. I don't know how many of your changes qualify as reverts, but you're certainly edit warring. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Arthur Rubin. Hello Arthur, I think you are the author of the present existing Wikipedia entry on the Euclid Infinitude of Primes Proof. At least that was what was suggested in 2006 when I attempted to correct the Wikipedia entry. So maybe I am in luck with confronting the present author of that entry.

Arthur, can you put a template up in front of that entry to suggest that the present entry is unsatisfactory because it is a flawed proof and that this entry is under a watchful eye. I am sure there are many templates in Wikipedia and this one deserves a template in that the proof is under much scrutiny.

Arthur, if you are indeed the author of the present Wikipedia entry of Euclid Infinitude of Primes Proof it is flawed because it is the mixture of both the Direct and Indirect all inside one proof attempt. Because of this mixture of methods, it is logically unsound and invalid. You start off with Suppose (suggesting you are doing a Indirect Method) and later in your attempt, you throw in a Prime Factor Search for a new prime (which is the Direct Method of increasing set Cardinality). So you mixed two methods into one and end up with a mishmash of a invalid proof. If you do not believe what I am saying, there is a simple test-- you write out a Direct and Indirect Proof of Euclid IP, which would provide you with the obvious understanding that yours is a invalid composite. Anyone who can write out a Direct and Indirect Euclid IP can instantly appreciate that W+1 is neceassarily prime, and so your case example of 30031 only shows your confusion.

Here is what the Wikipedia Euclid Infinitude of Primes Proof should look like:

Euclid Proof of Infinitude of Primes: Direct Method: Increase the cardinality of any finite set for example {3,5} form W+1 = (3x5)+1 which is 16. Now apply the prime factor search yielding the prime 2 out of 16. Thus you produced a new prime not on your list. And since *any* finite set is increased in cardinality implies it is infinite.

Euclid Proof of Infinitude of Primes: Indirect Method: Suppose {3,5} are the only primes. Form W+1 = (3x5)+1 which is 16. It is necessarily prime because 3 and 5 are all the primes that ever exist but when they divide into W+1 they leave a remainder of 1, hence W+1 is prime from the definition of prime and larger than 5. Contradiction therefore proof.

And it should be given a paragraph about the history of Euclid's IP proof saying that this was so ancient of history of mathematics that they did not understand well in those ancient times that you could have a Direct Method and Indirect Method because Reductio Ad Absurdum was just discovered in the time of Euclid.

Since Euclid's wording throws a "Suppose" in it, others have wrongly fastened on the idea that Euclid did a Indirect method, whereas the other language suggests Euclid did a Direct method of increasing set cardinality.

I recommend we give Euclid full credit for IP and simply list both methods.

But it is wrong to intertwine the two methods and thence call it a valid proof. We must remember that many of Euclid's proofs of geometry were corrected in modern times, and his IP is now corrected.

So, Arthur, is there a template you can throw up in front of this entry saying that this proof is under scrutiny.

And that anyone wanting to give a valid Infinitude of Primes proof following along the lines of Euclid, must show that his/her proof can provide not only a valid Direct Method but a valid Indirect Method, for which the present Wikipedia entry is a failure since it is a mixture of both. (talk) 10 April 2007

Although I believe your argument is completely bogus, that's not a reason for failing to place a dispute tag on the article. The reason is that the dispute neither contained nor described in any reliable source, so we, as Wikipedians may not take notice of it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply Arthur. I guess you are truly the author of this Wikipedia entry since you do not deny the claim. And I guess the tag I seek is a Dispute Tag. I respectfully request from Wikipedia to apply a dispute tag. I can cite several sources that this Wikipedia entry is error laden. I can cite Karl Heuer in sci.math circa 1994, and Stillwell's book Mathematics and its History, and several in sci.math who have stated they believe Euclid's proof was Direct, plus my book written and published to sci.math on this subject.

But citations is not my best evidence against your entry, for my best evidence is that you are unable to give a valid Direct plus Indirect of this proof, because you have the two mixed up into one in your entry as is. Your entry starts as a Reductio ad Absurdum and moves on to a Direct method of a prime factor search. And to top it off, you are so confused with 30031 that you cannot even see that it is necessarily prime in the Indirect Method. Your entry in Wikipedia of Euclid's Infinitude of Primes Proof is a laughable and silly example of one who cannot see a clear proof argument. And it is authors like you who continue to burden the minds of young people trying to learn the TRUTH behind this proof. So, Arthur, take the test, I challenge you-- write out a Indirect and a Direct proof of IP, what are you scared of? Why burden young people who want to learn with your messy and invalid proof --- Archimedes Plutonium

Can a senior editor over that of Arthur Rubin step into this fray and attach a Dispute Tag, because Arthur is to close to the problem itself (thanks) : Newsgroups: sci.math From: "a_plutonium" <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> Date: 10 Apr 2007 12:31:55 -0700 Local: Tues, Apr 10 2007 2:31 pm Subject: will Arthur Rubin take the challenge or leave a messy and invalid Euclid IP proof on Wikipedia; can a senior Wiki editor enter and add a Dispute Tag Re: Correcting Wikipedia's Euclid's Infinitude of Primes Proof

I do not know how long Wikipedia keeps its TALK over disputes of a entry so I post to sci.math to get that date time group and permanence.

The Wikipedia page on Euclid's IP proof needs a Dispute Tag attached. The challenge is that Arthur Rubin's entry (at least he never denied he is the author of that entry), makes it impossible for him to deliver a valid IP both Direct and Indirect Method, because he has the two mixed up as one already. In order for Arthur to give a valid Direct and a valid Indirect would mean he has to peal away his present entry and give some elements to the Direct and other elements to the Indirect.

So I request some senior editor of Wikipedia, senior to Arthur Rubin since he is too close to the problem of this entry, to place a Dispute Tag on this entry.

--- signed Archimedes Plutonium, 2:40 PM, 10 April 07 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs)

wikipedia does not have a hierarchy of editors. Just editors (like you and me) and admins. If you call on an admin, they can decide about policy, not about content. In your case, the most relevant policy may be WP:COI. It's really not OK to push your own WP:OR. Dicklyon 19:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information Dicklyon Perhaps I could get a number of editors to put up a Dispute Tag, because of the consideration that Arthur Rubin is the author of the item which I am disputing and which he has a vested interest in. Also I am posting this conversation in part to sci.math and Mark Nudelman is helping in the discussion. So maybe Mark is an editor of Wikipedia and perhaps he can serve as a go-between me and Arthur Rubin.

I don't see that Arther Rubin has added much of anything to the article. His edits are all reverts of errors. If he wrote something that you feel is a conflict of interest or his original research, please point it out and I'll consider it. Dicklyon 21:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I am asking is a Dispute Tag be placed on this entry for the time being. And that to end the confusion, that both a DIRECT Method proof and a INDIRECT Method proof of Euclid IP be given that would end and remove the Dispute Tag. This would end the confusion on the part of young people who are learning about this very famous proof.

Here is the recent post to sci.math Newsgroups: sci.math From: "a_plutonium" <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> Date: 10 Apr 2007 13:01:16 -0700 Local: Tues, Apr 10 2007 3:01 pm Subject: Re: again, listing the flaws of Wikipedia's Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof Re: Correcting Wikipedia's Euclid's Infinitude of Primes Proof

Mark Nudelman wrote: > On 4/10/2007 11:54 AM, a_plutonium wrote: > > Wrong, the Wikipedia version is a sloppy mixture of both methods > > ending up with a invalid proof.

> It looks to me like a straightforward direct proof that given a set of m > primes, there is another prime not in the set. It's the same as > Euclid's proof. In what way is there an indirect proof mixed in with this?

> --Mark

I concur with what you said above. I strongly believe Euclid meant his proof to be Direct, but somewhere in history, reductio ad absurdum was attached to Euclid's IP. But regardless, I think we should place both methods side by side whenever we talk about Euclid's Infinitude of Primes proof. Side by side will eliminate most confusion over this famous proof.

So what I am asking of Wikipedia is to eventually have their entry contain both the Direct Method and Indirect Method, side by side so that confusion is vastly eliminated in the minds of young readers who want to learn this properly.

Cut the endless wrangle over whether Euclid intended Direct or intended Indirect, and give a proof using both methods side by side. So if Arthur Rubin wants to keep his entry of Euclid's IP, I have no gripe about that as long as he gives both Methods and thus wards off confusion by young learners. As Wikipedia stands at this very moment, it displays a false and messy and invalid proof of Infinitude of Primes and leaves the reader with the high degree of confusion over reductio ad absurdum and when is 30031 prime or not prime and where is set cardinality fit with reductio ad absurdum. So all is confusion with the present Wikipedia entry of Euclid IP.

This is the best I could do in as brief of a writing---

It is unknown as to whether Euclid meant a Direct or Indirect proof, since his proof was over 2,000 years old and the concepts in ancient times were not able to differentiate whether Euclid intended to be Direct or Indirect, which is further complicated by the fact that Reductio Ad Absurdum was just discovered around the time of Euclid. One thing though is certain that if you combine the two methods into one, you end up with an invalid argument.

Euclid Proof of Infinitude of Primes: Direct Method: Increase the cardinality of any finite set for example {3,5} form W+1 = (3x5)+1 which is 16. Now apply the prime factor search yielding the prime 2 out of 16. Thus you produced a new prime not on your list. And since

any* finite set is increased in cardinality implies it is infinite.

Euclid Proof of Infinitude of Primes: Indirect Method: Suppose {3,5} are the only primes. Form W+1 = (3x5)+1 which is 16. It is necessarily prime because 3 and 5 are all the primes that ever exist but when they divide into W+1 they leave a remainder of 1, hence W+1 is prime from the definition of prime and larger than 5. Contradiction therefore proof.

signed Archimedes Plutonium, 3:12 PM , 10 April 07

This wikipedia article on prime numbers contains many deep results. However the current claimed "indirect method" seems to be the personal viewpoint of one editor and does not reflect the general consensus. The last paragraph is not written in a style appropriate for a wikipedia article: it is mathematically ungrammatical. Moreover for remarks about the history of science, shouldn't the precise source be quoted? --Mathsci 21:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Mathsci No the response is not a singular personal viewpoint. If you check the history of Wikipedia's entry of Euclid IP, you will see that for years back, many others have raised this issue of Direct and Indirect which was always glossed away and ignored. And a troubling feature of encyclopedia editors is this incessant top priority of source and citation, when the Top Priority should always be the TRUTH. The present Wikipedia Euclid Infinitude of Primes Proof is a flawed and invalid contraption, written by someone who is not an expert on the logic of Euclid's Infinitude of Primes Proof. He may well be a renowned mathematician, but he is no expert on Euclid's IP. His writing of the Proof is flawed in many areas. And the best way to show him that his IP proof does not deserve to be in Wikipedia's entry is to ask him to display a Euclid Infinitude of Primes Direct Method alongside a Euclid Infinitude of Primes Indirect Method. Cut the editorial nonsense of source and citation, and stick to the Top Priority--- show a TRUE and Crystal Clear Proof.

Perhaps my display has a few grammatical errors, but mine is Crystal Clear and mine is TRUE and mine is nonconfusing. Mine shows the difference between Direct and Indirect. Mine is true. Mine teaches young people the correct way to prove infinitude of primes. Wikipedia's present display is flawed and invalid and teaches noone the difference between Direct and Indirect and in fact confuses more than it clarifies.

I doubt the author can display a Direct alongside an Indirect because his has both mixed up together.

The TOP Priority of Wikipedia and any other encyclopedia is not the source or the citation, but is in fact what we all crave and depend on the TRUTH.

So, please put a Dispute Tag on Euclid's IP saying that it will be removed once some author or authors display a Direct Euclid IP alongside an Indirect Euclid IP. Because such a display forces the authors to have a VALID proof. And then we can add a paragraph saying that it is unknown as to whether Euclid intended one or the other since Reductio Ad Absurdum was newly discovered by the time of Euclid.

Tell, me, does Wikipedia have some sort of group type meeting where things such as the discussion of Priorities can be aired, because I sense this Misplaced Value towards sources and references and citations have gone amok in Wikipedia circles and losing sight of the Top Priority-- the TRUTH. Archimedes Plutonium, 7:24PM, 10 April 07 Thanks for your attention

More information with regards to showing both a Direct Method and Indirect Method for Euclid's IP

Newsgroups: sci.math, sci.logic From: "a_plutonium" <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> Date: 10 Apr 2007 17:47:08 -0700 Local: Tues, Apr 10 2007 7:47 pm Subject: require Euclid IP proofs to give both Direct and Indirect in tandem Re: Correcting Wikipedia's Euclid's Infinitude of Primes Proof

Dave L. Renfro wrote: > a_plutonium wrote (in part):

> > Suppose you have a finite number of primes. Call this number m. > > Multiply all m primes together and add one (see Euclid number). > > The resulting number is not divisible by any of the finite > > set of primes, because dividing by any of these would give > > a remainder of one. And one is not divisible by any primes.

> The last sentence seems inappropriate. Getting a remainder > that _isn't_zero_ establishes non-divisibility. I don't see > the point in saying that one is not divisible by any primes.

> Minor point 1: I think "by any primes" should be "by any prime" > (i.e. use singular form with "any" in this context).

> Minor point 2: Do you mean not divisible by any prime in the > finite list, or not divisible by any prime what so ever? > It's true either way, but by not being explicit you leave > the reader trying to guess at your intended meaning.

> Dave L. Renfro

Well Dave, keep in mind that your picking apart the above is not my proof offering but that of Arthur Rubin's as listed in Wikipedia for Euclid's Infinitude of Primes. I want to throw the entire proof out as invalid since it is a mixture of both the Direct and Indirect Method.

As for his sentence "And one is not divisible by any primes" is a sentence that is non sequitur to the proof itself and a case which shows the author is not an expert of this proof. I think what happened here is the author focused on Euclid's ancient proof too much where Euclid was obsessed with division into one, and the present author transferred that ancient obsession into a modern day summary.

But no, this exercise has lead me to a valuable conclusion, that the best way to resolve this issue is to ask anyone that is required to Prove Euclid Infinitude of Primes, that they cannot get away with just a Direct Method or just a Indirect Method, but that they are required to register both methods in two proofs alongside one another. That requirement then puts the burden on the author to give a Valid proof that is crystal clear, if they have the wits to do it.

So, can you, Dave Renfro offer up a IP direct method alongside an IP indirect method. That tandem offering puts extra burden on the author to make a valid and crystal clear proof.

Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

END

Newsgroups: sci.math From: "a_plutonium" <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> Date: 10 Apr 2007 18:12:57 -0700 Local: Tues, Apr 10 2007 8:12 pm Subject: new standard for Euclid IP proof-- able to give both Direct and Indirect alongside one another Re: Correcting Wikipedia's Euclid's Infinitude of Primes Proof

Mark Nudelman wrote: > On 4/10/2007 1:01 PM, a_plutonium wrote: (snipped)

> Ok, so you agree that wikipedia's proof is correct as it stands, and it > correctly represents what Euclid wrote. Whether some historians > misunderstood Euclid isn't relevant, either to the correctness of a > modern direct proof, or to any discussion about what Euclid actually wrote.

No, just the opposite. If I thought they were correct, I would not be making these posts. Wikipedia's IP is flawed and invalid and muddled.

And you seem to believe Euclid's IP was direct. But G.H. Hardy in his book A Mathematician's Apology writes that Euclid's IP is Indirect. So, already the history is relevant as to why thousands of mathematicians believe Euclid did an Indirect and then others believe he did a Direct.

And because you Mark seems to think that the Wikipedia entry is correct except for a minor delete of the word "Suppose", that I doubt you can proffer a valid Indirect alongside a valid Direct. So would you mind showing us your version of a Euclid Direct and Indirect proof.

For you see, I have set a new standard of correctness for Euclid IP. That if you think you know the proof, you should be able to give both alongside one another.

> > But regardless, > > I think we should place both methods side by side whenever we talk > > about Euclid's Infinitude > > of Primes proof. Side by side will eliminate most confusion over this > > famous proof.

> Well, that's a personal preference. If someone presents the direct > proof alone, that doesn't make it wrong. Someone who had never seen the > theorem proved by contradiction would not be confused by the direct proof.

I agree it does not make it wrong, but it does not reveal whether the person knows the full story as to a valid Direct and a valid Indirect, and where the two methods reinforce the logic of each. So that if a person can proffer both simultaneously, we can be sure that the person fully understands the proof and can give it crystal clearly. It is much like a bricklayer or block layer who calls it quits once the brick is placed and never goes back to tuck point the joints and leaves the joints messy and ugly.

> > As Wikipedia stands at this > > very moment, it > > displays a false and messy and invalid proof of Infinitude of Primes > > and leaves the > > reader with the high degree of confusion over reductio ad absurdum and > > when is > > 30031 prime or not prime and where is set cardinality fit with > > reductio ad absurdum. > > So all is confusion with the present Wikipedia entry of Euclid IP.

> Now you're contradicting what you said earlier. The wikipedia article > as it stands is correct. It may be confusing to someone who expects to > find a proof by contradiction there, but it is not invalid.

It is invalid because it starts with Suppose and it ends with the sentence of the case of 30031, because 30031 is necessarily prime in the Indirect Method. So when an expert reads the Wikipedia entry those two clues of Suppose and 30031 tells us the author was writing a Indirect Method and interpreting Euclid as writing a Indirect Method proof.

You, Mark, have not offered your version of Direct alongside Indirect, so I do not expect you to understand or see why Wikipedia's is a flawed attempt.

> > This is the best I could do in as brief of a writing---

> > It is unknown as to whether Euclid meant a Direct or Indirect proof, > > since his proof was over 2,000 years old and > > the concepts in ancient times were not able to differentiate whether > > Euclid intended to be Direct or Indirect, which is further complicated > > by the fact that Reductio Ad Absurdum was just discovered around the > > time of Euclid.

> I don't agree with this. Euclid's proof is quite clearly a direct > proof. Euclid certainly knew what a proof by contradiction was, and was > able to write one, because he actually uses a proof by contradiction for > one of the subcases in his proof of 9.20. Euclid wrote:

> I say that G is not the same as any of A, B, C. For, if > possible, let it be (the same). And A, B, C (all) measure DE. > Thus, G will also measure DE. And it also measures EF. (So) G > will also measure the remainder, unit DF, (despite) being a number > [Prop. 7.28]. The very thing (is) absurd.

> This is a clear proof by contradiction, just as the proof of the theorem > as a whole is clearly a direct proof, not by contradiction. It is > untrue to say that it is "unknown" as to what type of proof Euclid was > using.

> --Mark

Okay, your last three paragraphs are excellent, because it hints of where the historical problems probably arose, where G.H. Hardy was under the illusion that Euclid IP was reductio ad absurdum. He probably read what you quoted and also saw some word "Assume or Suppose" early on and then Hardy presumed that Euclid did the entire proof as Indirect.

So, this is why setting the new standard eliminates the confusion and the errors. That we require all who prove Euclid Infinitude of Primes to give two proofs-- one in Direct method and alongside one in Indirect Method so that the two in tandem will guide the author to making a crystal clear and flawless proof.

The above last paragraphs is so informative that I will take the liberty of posting it to Wikipedia TALK. Archimedes Plutonium , 8:26 PM , 10Apr07

Why are you cutting and pasting posts from sci.math here? Are the contributors wikipedia editors? The correct place for you to make whichever points you wish to make is on the wikipedia discussion page for prime numbers, not here. Please could you also sign your name with four tildes so your current wikipedia user name (Superdeterminism) appears automatically along with the time of posting. --Mathsci 04:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Okay, let me see if it works]and what is the secret code for making a revert? Superdeterminism 06:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What an interesting question. There is no secret code. Only a very small amount of intelligence is required to make a revert. However, it is likely that you will be banned from editing wikipedia if you continue vandalising the discussion pages of prime numbers. --Mathsci 06:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming Solutions

Please do not create articles requesting other articles. There is a very complete series of articles on global warming; perhaps the most relevent of which to you is mitigation of global warming. Take a look at the template for the series of articles on the subject. J Milburn 01:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Milburn thanks for redirecting me. I knew it had to be somewhere but I am afraid of a title as Mitigation of Global Warming is hard to find by those who are looking for Solutions list. Perhaps they can find it because Global Warming is the general topic and mitigation a subtopic. Anyway, I feel it important to include both Crutzen's and my own proposal, because in effect we are proposing something larger than the current CAP & TRADE conducted in Europe. Because our proposal is the start of something even larger-- building an Earth Air Conditioner. Crutzen uses sulfur, whereas I use thistle-seed. I am confident that some day in this century all airplanes will be required by law to release some seed into the apogee of airplane flightpath in order to mitigate the worst of Global Warming. Archimedes Plutonium, 9:21 PM, 10Apr07