9 Aug
2004
9 Aug
'04
9:38 a.m.
Third, give the proof. It would make for an interesting experiment to see what finally appears in print.
Probably something like this:
"The proof is based on the method of self-contradiction, in which an assertion is assumed to be both true and false at the same time."
I'm sure the press could find some other way to garble the proof, but this particular garbling could be avoided by using a direct, constructive, proof, rather than a completely unnecessary proof by contradiction. Theorem: For any N, there is a prime > N. Proof: Consider any prime factor of N!+1 What does the traditional insertion of "first suppose there are no primes > N" add to this proof, other than the possibility of confusion? Andy Latto andy.latto@pobox.com