ayepif

Pity indeed! Do you have any suggested resources that are more up-to-date?

Which art do you practice? If you don't mind me asking.

They're all former academics/mathematicians!

What would you say are the prerequisites for this course? It looks interesting but I've never taken a Comp Arch course myself and worry I'll be too far out of depth.

This is a very well-thought out pedagogical tool. Can't wait for part 2!

Maybe I'm being super pedantic and possibly confrontational (I apologise in advance) but it jumped out on me here. I think you've misunderstood the 'famous elementary proof' that there are infinite primes. You do not create a new prime as you have suggested (quoted below).

"Multiply them together and add one. No prime divides the new number (because "every" prime leaves a remainder 1), so you've just produced a new prime. This new prime is larger than the largest prime in your finite set because you multiplied that by the rest of them and added one to get it."

Instead you have created a number that may or may not be prime but definitely requires a new prime number (not in your set) to factorise it. Counter example: Take your set of prime numbers to be {2,3,5,7,11,13} then

(2.3.5.7.11.13)+1 = 30031

30031 factorises into 59.509 so you have found two prime numbers that are not in your original set.

EDIT: Responding to the edit above. The problem is that you claim that you make a new prime number by multiplying them all together and adding one. You didn't multiply all the numbers and added one to get the prime number, you multiplied all the numbers and added one to get a number (POSSIBLY NOT PRIME) whose FACTORS are prime numbers not in your original 'supposed' finite set. Your proof essentially lacks the step: IF new_number is prime: proof finished ELSE: factor new_number and show that at least one of the factors is not in your finite set.

EDIT 2: Counterexample number 2. Suppose your finite set of primes is {2,7} (2.7)+1 = 15 So you have found 3 and 5 as primes that are not in your original set and are SMALLER than the largest prime in your original set. This is now a second mistake in your proof. Whether you are trolling or just too arrogant to see the mistake/error I do not know.

What are some ways around it as is mentioned in the article?