On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 6:13:20 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> So you cleaned your house and found a conic
> that wasnt ellipse only oval. Ha Ha
>

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 7:11:18 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> And the winner for the worst logic brain is:

AP writes: and so 4 years later, Jan Burse of Zurich ETH failure and hiding behind a ridiculous fake name notices how failed is Dr. Tao of UCLA with his con-art of the Green-Tao fake theorem, never defining what the hell is "infinity" and just plain assuming a infinity means "endless" when in fact as AP shown from Huygens that there is a Well Defined Infinity, provided one has a logical brain. That which neither Tao or Burse have.

So, well there are striking similarities with Hales con-art fakery of Kepler Packing and the con-art fakery of Green and Tao, for both groups fail to well define infinity. And the impact on Hales is there is a more dense packing when you approach infinity borderline than the pure hexagonal close pack, a hybrid packing is the most dense with the bulk being HCP. So we see how a well defined infinity impacts the fake proof of Hales.

But how does that well defined infinity impact the Green - Tao con-art??

Well, it impacts them more than Hales's con-art.

Because the Huygens Tractric well defined infinity borderline is 1*10^604 and so, somewhere along the line of strings of primes separated by a specific distance length such as 4 for 3, 7, 11 for a string of 3 primes and 12 distance for 5, 17, 29, 41, 53 for a string of 5 primes. So what Tao and Green think they proved is that you can have a infinite number of primes for a string of a distance separation. But can you really if you well define, what the hell is infinity? Of course Green and Tao were almost like infant toddlers crawling on the floor of mathematics while the King of Math, AP was doing mathematics, and would never know or understand that you have to have WELL DEFINED CONCEPTS before doing proofs involved with infinity.

So, if the borderline of Infinity is 1*10^604. At what distance length will you cease having a string of consecutive primes before reaching 1*10^604? This is a question totally foreign to Green and Tao with their impish understanding of Infinity.

Now here, AP is going to conjecture based on a string of 3 takes up to 11, and a string of 5 takes up to 53. That AP is going to conjecture that a string of 1*10^604 primes separated by a distance of 1*10^604 is going to take up to about 10^1211. Far beyond the permissible limit of the 1*10^1208 allowed. And far exceeding the number 1*10^607-- going past the infinity borderline to get 1^10^604 primes between 1 and 1*10^1208.

I doubt any of our modern day computers can verify any of this. For I doubt any modern day computers can ever list list all the primes between 1 and 10^604.

But then in AP's teachings, why even bother? Why bother at all, because Primes is a ILL conceived set for there is no division operation on a set of counting numbers divided by other counting numbers-- for a well defined set always yields more members of that original set. Example 1/2 is not a counting number. But addition and multiplication are well defined over Counting Numbers. So here we have the question of why ever even bother with silly stupid ruminations about primes numbers? Why? For primes are exercises for the mentally ill in mathematics.

And this goes to show, that one con-art teaches another con-art-- Hales Kepler Packing teaches Green-Tao con art.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 7:56:54 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 6:13:20 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > So you cleaned your house and found a conic
> > that wasnt ellipse only oval. Ha Ha
> >
>
> On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 7:11:18 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > And the winner for the worst logic brain is:
>
> AP writes: and so 4 years later, Jan Burse of Zurich ETH failure and hiding behind a ridiculous fake name notices how failed is Dr. Tao of UCLA with his con-art of the Green-Tao fake theorem, never defining what the hell is "infinity" and just plain assuming a infinity means "endless" when in fact as AP shown from Huygens that there is a Well Defined Infinity, provided one has a logical brain. That which neither Tao or Burse have.
>
> So, well there are striking similarities with Hales con-art fakery of Kepler Packing and the con-art fakery of Green and Tao, for both groups fail to well define infinity. And the impact on Hales is there is a more dense packing when you approach infinity borderline than the pure hexagonal close pack, a hybrid packing is the most dense with the bulk being HCP. So we see how a well defined infinity impacts the fake proof of Hales.
>
> But how does that well defined infinity impact the Green - Tao con-art??
>
> Well, it impacts them more than Hales's con-art.
>
> Because the Huygens Tractric well defined infinity borderline is 1*10^604 and so, somewhere along the line of strings of primes separated by a specific distance length such as 4 for 3, 7, 11 for a string of 3 primes and 12 distance for 5, 17, 29, 41, 53 for a string of 5 primes. So what Tao and Green think they proved is that you can have a infinite number of primes for a string of a distance separation. But can you really if you well define, what the hell is infinity? Of course Green and Tao were almost like infant toddlers crawling on the floor of mathematics while the King of Math, AP was doing mathematics, and would never know or understand that you have to have WELL DEFINED CONCEPTS before doing proofs involved with infinity.
>
> So, if the borderline of Infinity is 1*10^604. At what distance length will you cease having a string of consecutive primes before reaching 1*10^604? This is a question totally foreign to Green and Tao with their impish understanding of Infinity.
>
> Now here, AP is going to conjecture based on a string of 3 takes up to 11, and a string of 5 takes up to 53. That AP is going to conjecture that a string of 1*10^604 primes separated by a distance of 1*10^604 is going to take up to about 10^1211. Far beyond the permissible limit of the 1*10^1208 allowed. And far exceeding the number 1*10^607-- going past the infinity borderline to get 1^10^604 primes between 1 and 1*10^1208.
>
> I doubt any of our modern day computers can verify any of this. For I doubt any modern day computers can ever list list all the primes between 1 and 10^604.
>
> But then in AP's teachings, why even bother? Why bother at all, because Primes is a ILL conceived set for there is no division operation on a set of counting numbers divided by other counting numbers-- for a well defined set always yields more members of that original set. Example 1/2 is not a counting number. But addition and multiplication are well defined over Counting Numbers. So here we have the question of why ever even bother with silly stupid ruminations about primes numbers? Why? For primes are exercises for the mentally ill in mathematics.
>
> And this goes to show, that one con-art teaches another con-art-- Hales Kepler Packing teaches Green-Tao con art.
>
> AP
> King of Science, especially Physics

And, because they are so far apart, beyond 1*10^1208, means the Green-Tao theorem is totally false, for there are no infinite strings of Primes separated by a finite distance. If a finite distance of 1*10^604 yielded a infinite string of primes of 1*10^604 between 1 and 1*10^1208, then the Green-Tao theorem is correct. But that is not what happens.

Take the case of pretend 10 is the infinity borderline, then 100 would be the ultimate limit for saying there are infinite numbers of so and so. Can we find a string of 10 primes separated by a distance of 10 given only 1 to 100? No, I see in the first 100 primes no string of 10 primes separated by any distance.

So, here, in these two posts, I have proven the Green-Tao alleged theorem is b.s. Total b.s. because the concept of "infinity was ill defined". And on top of ill defined infinity, grown ups playing with a ill defined set-- the Primes since Counting Numbers are ill-defined over Division.

So what does that make Tao and Green? Certainly not mathematicians.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

💀 of Math and ☠️ of Physics Archimedes "Putin's Stooge" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> blithered:

> So what does that make Tao and Green? Certainly not mathematicians.

Well Tao is the new King of Math, and ArchiePoo remains the Royal Court
Jester of Math, to entertain the new King.
>
> AP
> Drag Queen of Science, especially Physics
>

No, it is not worth writing a whole new book for AP spelling out the b.s. failure of the Green-Tao theorem. No, instead this should be included in the Hales's Kepler Packing failure for both groups screwed up horribly with no Well Defined Infinity. And to think one can prove something about infinity when they are nerdy fools of even knowing what infinity means. There is an Aesop fable type of message and theme in all of this. That vagueness of a subject can never lead to clarity, but only more vagueness.

So this has my interest perked, to see what the maximum string of primes is from 1 to 100 if 10 were the infinity borderline. What I need is for the first string of 10 primes spaced a specific distance apart. And this tells everyone in mathematics, going forward, that all questions, yes all questions of is it infinite or is it finite has to go through this same process, "Are there 1^10^604 such things between 1 and 1*10^1208, the line of completeness." Primes, even though ill-defined themselves are infinite because there are 1*10^604 primes between 1 and 1*10^607 (this numbers needs sharpening up).

--- quoting utm.edu ---
The First 1,000 Primes
(the 1,000th is 7919)
For more information on primes see https://primes.utm.edu/

2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29
31 37 41 43 47 53 59 61 67 71
73 79 83 89 97 101 103 107 109 113
127 131 137 139 149 151 157 163 167 173
179 181 191 193 197 199 211 223 227 229
233 239 241 251 257 263 269 271 277 281
283 293 307 311 313 317 331 337 347 349
353 359 367 373 379 383 389 397 401 409
419 421 431 433 439 443 449 457 461 463
467 479 487 491 499 503 509 521 523 541
547 557 563 569 571 577 587 593 599 601
607 613 617 619 631 641 643 647 653 659
661 673 677 683 691 701 709 719 727 733
739 743 751 757 761 769 773 787 797 809
811 821 823 827 829 839 853 857 859 863
877 881 883 887 907 911 919 929 937 941
947 953 967 971 977 983 991 997 1009 1013
1019 1021 1031 1033 1039 1049 1051 1061 1063 1069

The maximum string I see is a distance separation of 6 and involves 5 primes, 5, 11, 17, 23, 29.

And the AP well defined infinity allows us to always use Mathematical Induction for proofs on whether finite or infinite.

And looking in the above, I cannot even spot a string larger than 5 in the first primes in 1 to 1000. So where is the first location of a string of 10 primes separated by a given constant distance? It must be a distance number far larger than 10 itself.

No, this news does not deserve a book titled Green -Tao have a screwed up theorem which is in fact false. We do not write science books on failed science. So it must be included in Kepler Packing Problem proof of AP.

And well, the Green-Tao failure is not over with, for there is the question of what duped both Green and Tao. What did they employ for their fake proof? And I would certainly bet that they used a Reductio Ad Absurdum, perhaps two or three RAA in their con art fakery.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

--- quoting from the Web a site by Njwildberger who found a string of 10 primes separated in length by the constant 210 and they are 199, 409, 619, 829, 1039, 1249, 1459, 1669, 1879, 2089.

--- end quote ---

So that saves me a lot of time looking.

And it goes to show a fine example of a set that is not infinite, but is a finite set. So counter to the Green-Tao theorem, theirs is a fakery and theirs is false.

You cannot have a arbitrary long sequence of primes given any constant finite number.

The very definition of Infinity is it has a borderline at 1*10^604 due to the proof of Huygens about tractrix where the area of tractrix catches up with associated circle area at this number-- the number where pi has 3 zero digits in a row.

Once the borderline is established, any number larger is a infinite-number, any smaller or equal to is a finite number.

So to prove any set is an infinite set goes through the very same program of algebraic completeness at 1*10^1208. Are there 1*10^604 primes existing between 1 and 1*10^1208, yes and quite easily. So primes are an infinite set..

How about perfect squares? The set 1, 4, 9, 16, . . .? Glad you asked for that is a Minimal Infinite set for there are precisely 1*10^604 perfect squares between 1 and 1*10^1208.

What about the Green-Tao offering. The set of sequences such as sequence of 2 primes, sequence of 3 primes, sequence of 4 primes, .. sequence of 10 primes, etc, etc. Are there 1*10^604 of these sequences with every number from 1 to 1*10^604 covered by a sequence between 1 and 1*10^1208 ??

And the answer is clearly no, because the program of math induction of all the scale numbers, 1, 10, 100, 1000, etc clearly shows that there is not even sufficient numbers if we pretend 10 is the infinity number, causing us to show that the numbers from 1 to 100 has a sequence of 10 primes. The largest sequence I can find in 1 to 100 is a sequence of 5 primes where 5, 11, 17, 23, 29 separated by a constant of 6.

So, the proof of Green- Tao is a fake proof for there are no infinite-- ie-- arbitrary long sequences out to infinity.

Another example is instructive. An excerpt from my book of the proof of Infinitude of Twin Primes.

World's First Proofs of Infinitude of Twin-Primes, and Polignac Proved// Math proof series, book 9

by Archimedes Plutonium

--- excerpt ---
These are the first 25 regular primes between 1 and 100: 
2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 
67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97.

There are 15 twin primes in that interval: 
3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 29, 31, 41, 43, 59, 61, 71, 73.

There are 15 quad primes in that interval: 
3,  7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 37, 41, 43, 47, 67, 71, 79, 83.

There are 21 hex primes in that interval: 
5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 73, 
79, 83, 89.

There are 18 octo primes in that interval: 
3, 5, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 79, 89, 97.

There are 19 deca primes in that interval: 
3, 7, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 61, 71, 73, 79, 83, 
89.

The Polignac primes turn out to be counterintuitive and very surprising. Our imagination paints a different picture than actual reality. The primes sets increase in membership, whereas I thought they decrease.

There are 12 [50s] primes in that interval: 
3, 53, 11, 61, 17, 67, 23, 73, 29, 79, 47, 97.

There are 14 [60s] primes in that interval: 
7, 67, 11, 71, 13, 73, 19, 79, 23, 83, 29, 89, 37, 97.

There are 6 [70s] primes in that interval: 
3, 73, 13, 83, 19, 89. And their abundance is only hampered by the fact that the border is a barrier and cuts them off.
--- end quote ---

So you see, to prove a given set in question is finite or infinite all goes through the very same structured program. Show that your set has 10 or more members from 1 to 100, then show it has 100 or more members between 1 and 10,000, then deduce your set has 1*10^604 members between 1 and 1*10^1208.

The Green-Tao theorem fails, is a fakery because it requires more than 1 to 1*10^1208 to get a sequence of primes of distance length 1*10^604 as constant.

AP

P.S. I think I should include this in the Kepler Packing Proof of AP, and perhaps include the same in my Infinitude of Twin Primes book as an example of a set that is finite, not infinite- hence, not arbitrarily long.

So, where does the finiteness of Prime sequences end up? If 10 primes requires the number 2089 then that is 2*10^3 for 10. That implies 604/3 = 201 approximately. That implies a distance length constant of 10^201 fills up all the largest prime sequences in 1*10^604. And implies that we need a algebraic completeness border be 1*10^1812 rather than 1*10^1208 to get a prime sequence of 1*10^604 primes.

So, here, here is proof the Green - Tao work is fakery, what is wrong with it and why it fails. It fails because never was given a WELL DEFINED CONCEPT OF INFINITY. It is almost the same failure as Hales's Kepler Packing in geometry where he fails to well define infinity as a borderline and thus screws up the hexagonal close pack as it nears the walls and ceiling of infinity with a hybrid packing near those walls and ceiling.

The price you pay in math for using and working with infinity that is ill defined, is the price that your work is worthless nonsense.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics