JSH: Depressing reality, prime reality
in [Math]
|
Prev: Dissection puzzle
Next: PRIME NUMBER DIVISOR , CLEAR EXPLANATION , BY INVERSE 19 ( AT THE REQUEST OF PROFESSOR ESCULTURA PHD)
From: Frederick Williams on 6 Mar 2010 10:29 JSH wrote: > > There is a lot of satisfaction with having my own axiom, which I had > the honor of naming as I'm the discoverer, which is of course, the > prime residue axiom, and yes, posters can reply in the negative or > derisively, but there you see the difference between finding something > and talk. Have you considered whether your axiom is consistent with the other axioms of number theory? > [...] > experiences I wonder if maybe there are fewer women discoverers > because they don't like to argue! (Hmmm...does that sound right?) If you know any non-argumentative women, I think you should tell us their 'phone numbers.
From: harry on 6 Mar 2010 14:41 "Frederick Williams" <frederick.williams2(a)tesco.net> wrote in message news:4B9274C8.22C23C03(a)tesco.net... > JSH wrote: >> >> There is a lot of satisfaction with having my own axiom, which I had >> the honor of naming as I'm the discoverer, which is of course, the >> prime residue axiom, and yes, posters can reply in the negative or >> derisively, but there you see the difference between finding something >> and talk. > > Have you considered whether your axiom is consistent with the other > axioms of number theory? > >> [...] >> experiences I wonder if maybe there are fewer women discoverers >> because they don't like to argue! (Hmmm...does that sound right?) > > If you know any non-argumentative women, I think you should tell us > their 'phone numbers. Also give us a picture
From: junoexpress on 6 Mar 2010 19:37 On Mar 6, 12:19 am, fishfry <BLOCKSPAMfish...(a)your-mailbox.com> wrote: > In article > <5141d1da-1266-4345-80ff-94fd799b7...(a)y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, > > JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > So it could be decades now. Having reached 40 it occurs to me that I > > don't have any juice left for major discoveries anyway. > > Yeah there goes your Fields medal. Precious ;>) But couldn't James still get one for the work he did *before* he turned 40? It would not surprise me in the least were he to win 2 or even 3 Fields medals for his numerous and profound discoveries which include: 1) Prime number axiom 2) Tautalogical spaces 3) Soln of Pell's eqn 4) Soln to the Traveling salesman problem 5) Proof of Fermat's Last theorem 6) The flaw fatale in the ring of algebraic integers Hope I didn't miss anything. But, if I did, please forgive me as I'm just an old geezer whose mind is shot and I've got to get back to finding my mortgage bill. Maybe it's at the bottom of this heap of important discoveries from young guys that I've been suppressing... M
From: MichaelW on 6 Mar 2010 20:43 On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:37:40 +0000, Mark Murray wrote: > On 06/03/2010 06:07, MichaelW wrote: >> Anyway the point is that there is some real working maths underlying >> James' work. > > Does James add anything to Dirichlet's Theorem? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirichlet% 27s_theorem_on_arithmetic_progressions > > M There is a whole body of work from 18th and 19th century number theory which is all interrelated and for which James' work is a small part; Dirichlet, the zeta function, prime counting and so on are all in here. I have already pointed out some of the overlap to James but the depressing reality is that he is not able to understand the maths enough to follow the connection. The worst part was when I demonstrated that his twin prime counting function asymptotically approached the number of twin primes times a constant and he claimed that this was a result of statistical variation rather than confirmation of his logic once it was corrected to allow for the constant. At the moment we have James' probability function: M(k=2 to n):(p(k)-2)/(p(k)-1) where "M" is the cumulative multiplication function. From the work we have mentioned previously we know that M:(p(k)-1)/p(k) is related to 1/zeta(1). I am hoping to use this to get a value for the probability function. Regards, Michael W.
From: Chip Eastham on 6 Mar 2010 21:01
On Mar 6, 7:37 pm, junoexpress <mtbrenne...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 6, 12:19 am, fishfry <BLOCKSPAMfish...(a)your-mailbox.com> wrote: > > > In article > > <5141d1da-1266-4345-80ff-94fd799b7...(a)y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, > > > JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > So it could be decades now. Having reached 40 it occurs to me that I > > > don't have any juice left for major discoveries anyway. > > > Yeah there goes your Fields medal. > > Precious ;>) > But couldn't James still get one for the work he did *before* he > turned 40? It would not surprise me in the least were he to win 2 or > even 3 Fields medals for his numerous and profound discoveries which > include: > > 1) Prime number axiom > 2) Tautalogical spaces > 3) Soln of Pell's eqn > 4) Soln to the Traveling salesman problem > 5) Proof of Fermat's Last theorem > 6) The flaw fatale in the ring of algebraic integers > > Hope I didn't miss anything. But, if I did, please forgive me as I'm > just an old geezer whose mind is shot and I've got to get back to > finding my mortgage bill. Maybe it's at the bottom of this heap of > important discoveries from young guys that I've been suppressing... > > M Thanks for this concise summary! It puts me in mind of those conferences which are organized around the 80th or later birth anniversaries of accomplished mathematicians, where papers are solicited that highlight developments of foundations laid by those giants. regards, chip |