When you say Y is a subset of X that is not what is happening here at all, since the statement X that there are an infinite number of numbers divisible by 6 must then show that there are an infinite number of numbers not of the form 6n+1, which leads to our conclusion. I dont see the fallacy(Original post by ukdragon37)
I just got to reading Lemma 5, and you are committing this fallacy:
An infinitude of X implies an infinitude of Y, satisfying property P with Y being a subset of X.
Which is not true in general without further proof. (It's like saying, there is an infinite number of natural numbers, so there is an infinite number of natural numbers smaller than 10).
In fact this reminds me of a very old Cambridge maths interview question
Spoiler:Show
Prove there are an infinitude of primes that end in 7.
and quoting the infinitude of primes result is not an acceptable answer!
In the end this Lemma 5 might well be as difficult as TPC.

 Follow
 2721
 07022014 01:24

 Follow
 2722
 07022014 01:31
(Original post by Nebula)
What I would like to see is you using this method to show, say, 95 is not of the form 6ab+a+b. That is, how can you get a missing value of 6ab+a+b, from restrictions on T? 
 Follow
 2723
 07022014 01:33
(Original post by theuser77)
I am certain that you can you use programs such as wolfram alpha to do this but my claim was not to have a formula but to have an expression that acts as a seive discarding all those integers of the form 6k+1 that are not prime. I have mathematically proved that if 95 is of the form 6k+1 then it must have a K of one of those forms mentioned above. If you want you can go ahead and put this into wolfram alpha and test for yourself. 
 Follow
 2724
 07022014 01:37
(Original post by ukdragon37)
Let's look at your statements closely:
"Euclid was able to prove that there is an infinitude of primes." Ok.
"We have already proven that all primes are of the form, ...., furthermore we have shown that an integer of the form is prime if and only if Q is not of the forms stated in Lemma 5." Ok.
"Hence we can conclude that there are an infinite number of Q’s that are required in order to satisfy our requirement that is prime if and only if Q is not of the forms stated in Lemma 5." Not ok. This only holds if the two previous statements can be combined. You are committing the fallacy that there is an infinite number of primes (X) so there is an infinite number of primes of your desired form (Y) such that it will result in your set of Qs being infinite. 
 Follow
 2725
 07022014 01:39
ii.
Last edited by theuser77; 20032015 at 20:39. 
ukdragon37
 Follow
 25 followers
 12 badges
 Send a private message to ukdragon37
Offline12ReputationRep: Follow
 2726
 07022014 01:39
(Original post by theuser77)
OMG im so srry that was from an old copy of the solution, that i have updated massively, so does that mean you have not seen what i have said about when T is divisible by 6. Please completely ignore that euclid stuff let me reupload the updated solution 
 Follow
 2727
 07022014 01:41
You still fall into the exact same trap.

 Follow
 2728
 07022014 01:41
yes, here i dont talk about euclid i think

 Follow
 2729
 07022014 01:46
(Original post by Noble.)
You still fall into the exact same trap. 
ukdragon37
 Follow
 25 followers
 12 badges
 Send a private message to ukdragon37
Offline12ReputationRep: Follow
 2730
 07022014 01:49
(Original post by Noble.)
You still fall into the exact same trap.(Original post by theuser77)
yes, here i dont talk about euclid i think
"Hence we can conclude that when T is divisible by 6, the expressions above cannot exist since leaves a remainder of 1 or 1 upon division by 6", and then say that there is an infinitude of numbers not of the forms you gave because there is an infinitude of numbers divisible by 6.
But T cannot be divisible by 6! You have defined by fiat that T is of the form 6k + 1, so to assert it is possible for T to be divisible by 6 is a contradiction and you can conclude anything from that. Example: Let T be a natural in the form 10  k for natural k. Hence k < 10. Suppose T is greater than 10, then clearly there are an infinite number of them. Hence clearly there are an infinite number of possible k.
Is T divisible by 6 or not? If it is, it can't be of the form 6k + 1. If it is not, then the rest of the proof for the lemma does not follow.Last edited by ukdragon37; 07022014 at 01:50. 
 Follow
 2731
 07022014 01:57
Again I think its my explanations that are letting me down here.
Ok so here is what i meant.
consider the expression
a(t)+b
when T is divisible by 6, it cannot be of the form 6b+1, hence the expressons shown above are impossible., but when T is leaves a remainder of+1 depending on which expression we are using then T can be expressed in the form 6b1 and hence such a form is possible. But there is an infinite number of t's that are divible by 6 and hence there are an infinite number of expressions not of the form 6ab+a+b. is that sufficient?
oh yeah and where t is a positive integer.
(Original post by ukdragon37)
Well my primary bone to pick in this one would be that you said:
"Hence we can conclude that when T is divisible by 6, the expressions above cannot exist since leaves a remainder of 1 or 1 upon division by 6", and then say that there is an infinitude of numbers not of the forms you gave because there is an infinitude of numbers divisible by 6.
But T cannot be divisible by 6! You have defined by fiat that T is of the form 6k + 1, so to assert it is possible for T to be divisible by 6 is a contradiction and you can conclude anything from that. Example: Let T be a natural in the form 10  k for natural k. Hence k < 10. Suppose T is greater than 10, then clearly there are an infinite number of them. Hence clearly there are an infinite number of possible k.
Is T divisible by 6 or not? If it is, it can't be of the form 6k + 1. If it is not, then the rest of the proof for the lemma does not follow. 
ukdragon37
 Follow
 25 followers
 12 badges
 Send a private message to ukdragon37
Offline12ReputationRep: Follow
 2732
 07022014 01:58
(Original post by Noble.)
You still fall into the exact same trap.(Original post by theuser77)
.... 
ukdragon37
 Follow
 25 followers
 12 badges
 Send a private message to ukdragon37
Offline12ReputationRep: Follow
 2733
 07022014 02:01
(Original post by theuser77)
Again I think its my explanations that are letting me down here.
Ok so here is what i meant.
consider the expression
a(t)+b
when T is divisible by 6, it cannot be of the form 6b+1, hence the expressons shown above are impossible., but when T is leaves a remainder of+1 depending on which expression we are using then T can be expressed in the form 6b1 and hence such a form is possible. But there is an infinite number of t's that are divible by 6 and hence there are an infinite number of expressions not of the form 6ab+a+b. is that sufficient?
oh yeah and where t is a positive integer. 
 Follow
 2734
 07022014 02:02
(Original post by theuser77)
Again I think its my explanations that are letting me down here.
Ok so here is what i meant.
consider the expression
a(t)+b
when T is divisible by 6, it cannot be of the form 6b+1, hence the expressons shown above are impossible., but when T is leaves a remainder of+1 depending on which expression we are using then T can be expressed in the form 6b1 and hence such a form is possible. But there is an infinite number of t's that are divible by 6 and hence there are an infinite number of expressions not of the form 6ab+a+b. is that sufficient?
oh yeah and where t is a positive integer. 
 Follow
 2735
 07022014 02:10
(Original post by ukdragon37)
Also I just noticed you have the constraint that Q has to be of the form x^2  y^2 = 24Q. So I would agree this means again you are falling into my trap where asserting there is an infinite number of Q of the desired form in Lemma 5 (X) implies there is an infinite number of Qs of the form x^2  y^2 = 24Q (Y).
that is what i have proved, but with added knowledge that there are an infinite number of Q not of the four forms we can find twin prime solution infinitely often. Btw please critisms of the work and not just vague things surrounding prime numbers. i appreaciate what you guys have been doing as i do believe we are simply fixing this soloutiona as it is certainly not irreperable. 
 Follow
 2736
 07022014 02:24
(Original post by theuser77)
I didnt say that Q has to be of any form other than the 4 forms i have stated clearly, if you substitute such a Q into the equation, with the only requiremnt of thos above, then we will yield twin prime solution.
that is what i have proved, but with added knowledge that there are an infinite number of Q not of the four forms we can find twin prime solution infinitely often. Btw please critisms of the work and not just vague things surrounding prime numbers. i appreaciate what you guys have been doing as i do believe we are simply fixing this soloutiona as it is certainly not irreperable. 
 Follow
 2737
 07022014 02:44
(Original post by Noble.)
You're just rewording what you've done thinking it changes anything, it doesn't. Saying "but with the added knowledge..." when it's an integral part of your attempted proof doesn't change the fact it doesn't work.
1. There are infinitely many primes of the form 6k+1 or 6k1 (proven)
2. twin primes differ by 2 and are of the form 6k+1 and 6k1 (proven)
up to this point there have been no constraints on what k can be
3. where 6Q+1 and 6Q1 are equated to x and y , then x^2y^2=24Q
where Q can be any integer.
4. when Q is not of the forms 6ab+a+b, 6ab+ab,6aba+b or 6abab
then Q is prime. (proven)
5. Subbing all values of Q not of the forms mentioned in 4 into the equation:
24Q=x^2y^2, will give solutions of the form 6Q+1 and 6Q1, but since Q is not of the forms mentioned in 4 the 6Q+1 and 6Q1 will be a prime pair since they differ by 2.
6.By showing that there are an infinite number of Q's not of the forms mentioned in 4 , we can sub each of those Q's into the equation to give unique primes of the form 6Q+1 and 6Q1.
7. we can show that there are an infinite number of Q's not of the forms mentioned in 4 by factorise them to reveal they are the same as
a(6b+1)+b
so now we can consider ALL numbers of the form 6T+1. these numbers can never be disivible by 6 and this is obvious.
now consider all numbers of the form
aS+b. If S is of the form 6b+1, then 6ab+a+b will be the expression that will arise as a result. But if S is not of the form 6b+1 then a different expression will arise. Henec for all such values not of the form 6b+1 we have a value of S that ensure that we not have an expression of the 6ab+a+b 
ukdragon37
 Follow
 25 followers
 12 badges
 Send a private message to ukdragon37
Offline12ReputationRep: Follow
 2738
 07022014 02:47
(Original post by theuser77)
I didnt say that Q has to be of any form other than the 4 forms i have stated clearly, if you substitute such a Q into the equation, with the only requiremnt of thos above, then we will yield twin prime solution.
that is what i have proved, but with added knowledge that there are an infinite number of Q not of the four forms we can find twin prime solution infinitely often. Btw please critisms of the work and not just vague things surrounding prime numbers. i appreaciate what you guys have been doing as i do believe we are simply fixing this soloutiona as it is certainly not irreperable.
"Therefore we can conclude that an integer R of the form 6k + 1 is prime if and only if k is not of the forms S" where I write S for short of the forms you disallow.
Consider R = 47 = 6*8  1, which is prime. But k = 8 is of one of the forms in S, since 8 = 6(1 * 1) + 1 + 1.
Note: I presume you are not allowed to let either a = 0 or b = 0, because then one can express any number n as a form in S simply by letting a = n and b = 0 and n = 6 * 0 + a  0.
EDIT: Will give the second counterexample some thoughtLast edited by ukdragon37; 07022014 at 02:50. 
 Follow
 2739
 07022014 03:23
(Original post by ukdragon37)
I'm just going to keep picking holes as that seems to be the best way to get across to you:
"Therefore we can conclude that an integer R of the form 6k + 1 is prime if and only if k is not of the forms S" where I write S for short of the forms you disallow.
Consider R = 47 = 6*8  1, which is prime. But k = 8 is of one of the forms in S, since 8 = 6(1 * 1) + 1 + 1.
Note: I presume you are not allowed to let either a = 0 or b = 0, because then one can express any number n as a form in S simply by letting a = n and b = 0 and n = 6 * 0 + a  0.
EDIT: Will give the second counterexample some thought
Last edited by Noble.; 07022014 at 03:32. 
ukdragon37
 Follow
 25 followers
 12 badges
 Send a private message to ukdragon37
Offline12ReputationRep: Follow
 2740
 07022014 03:42
(Original post by Noble.)
I gave him a counterexample to this a couple of pages back, he ignored it and decided to attach a PDF version of his proof instead.
and obviously 129 = 6(4*5)+4+5
But I agree this isn't really heading in any useful direction, since there is no proof that the desirable solutions don't just generate, say, cycles of primes within a finite class.
Reply
Submit reply
Related discussions:
 The Proof is 'notso' Trivial  Physics Edition
 Matrices: detA=0 > there exists a nontrivial solution to Ax=0 ...
 Slight ambiguity in STEP question
 Stuck on a proof!
 Maths Breakthroughs
 Is there a bottom line to what should be proven?
 Recursive unprovability
 Preparing for proofbased mathematics at university
 Progressing on to university proofbased mathematics
 Convergent sequence meromorphic function proof periods ...
TSR Support Team
We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.
This forum is supported by:
 SherlockHolmes
 Notnek
 charco
 Mr M
 TSR Moderator
 Nirgilis
 usycool1
 Changing Skies
 James A
 rayquaza17
 RDKGames
 randdom
 davros
 Gingerbread101
 Kvothe the Arcane
 The Financier
 The Empire Odyssey
 Protostar
 TheConfusedMedic
 nisha.sri
 Reality Check
 claireestelle
 Doonesbury
 furryface12
 Amefish
 harryleavey
 Lemur14
 brainzistheword
 Rexar
 Sonechka
 LeCroissant
 EstelOfTheEyrie
 CoffeeAndPolitics
 an_atheist
 Moltenmo
Updated: December 11, 2017
Share this discussion:
Tweet