jhart3333

chailatte, your comment is dead. I think it triggered the beautiful prose filter.

It's been a while since I studied this stuff and I screwed up a crucial part of the argument. The larger number isn't guaranteed to be prime. It's either prime or composite. In either case you end up with a prime not in the finite list of primes that follow from the assumption of a largest prime. Here is a link to a good explanation that includes the composite case:

http://www.jimloy.com/number/primes.htm

There is no largest prime. In fact the classic proof that there are infinitely many primes starts with the assumption that there is a largest prime and proceeds to use this number to construct a larger number which is also prime. This is a contradiction: "this is the largest prime" and "this is not the largest prime." So the original assumption must be false and "there is no largest prime" or equivalently "there are infinitely many primes". Recently it has been shown that this proof is a result of misunderstanding the one given in Euclid's Elements. Nevertheless it's still a fine proof.

Not really hard. Just move your money to a local bank or credit union. Easy.

Edit: Not really hard to do that part either. Just do your grocery shopping at a locally owned market or farmers market instead of a nationwide chain. No need to avoid the national chains completely. Just move in that direction.

Lots of people voting with a few dollars each adds up and will get their attention.

This site is my quick and dirty start: http://dontbuytheircrap.com But I haven't gotten around to building the tool yet. The idea is to have a mobile friendly web app that leverages social networking to help with this very problem. I didn't think there would be an opportunity for monetization. Maybe I was wrong.

Upvoted for explaining what is really going on here.

Ad Hominem.

You might try responding to the statements she made. For a retired judge to step into the public arena like this is quite out of the ordinary and it indicates to me that the behavior she witnessed in Ortiz was so egregious that extraordinary measures were called for.

So much for business as usual, happens all the time, nothing to see here, move along, move along..

> The charges weren't ridiculous

They were according to a retired federal judge: http://www.wbur.org/2013/01/16/gertner-criticizes-ortiz-swar...

from the article:

"She says she was troubled by much of what she learned and saw from the bench before leaving in 2011. And she says Ortiz should not have prosecuted Swartz." ... When asked if she was referring to the bad judgement of Carmen Ortiz, Gertner responded, “That’s right.”

Not sure this is correct. I just skimmed the article.

http://www.insinuator.net/2013/01/rails-yaml/

From the comments:

"From what i’ve see here is that versions below 2.0 should not be affected by this issue as they do not support xml parameters and don’t have any XMLMini implementations."

Older than 2.3? http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/

IIRC, In "The Emperors New Mind" Penrose mentions that Godel employed Cantor's "Method of Diagonalization" to show that within a system such as the natural numbers there can be true statements(uncountably infinite) not on the list of provable statements(countably infinite).