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: Jesse F. Hughes on 6 Mar 2010 21:30 junoexpress <mtbrenneman(a)gmail.com> writes: > 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 Defined mathematical proof? -- "I need to brief someone in government[...] Now if you acknowledge that my research MIGHT be important, then you can agree with me that it needs to be taken to areas off Usenet where some serious research can take place behind closed doors. I'd prefer the NSA." James S. Harris
From: Mark Murray on 7 Mar 2010 03:52 On 07/03/2010 01:43, MichaelW wrote: > 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. Therewith the rub. Your attempts to engage James in mathematical discourse are admirable. However, I suspect that you are beginning to notice that James isn't really in it for the maths. Notice how he quickly bails out and either ignores you or becomes abusive when you get too close to the incorrectness of his assertions? He's not in it for the maths - the maths is a tool to his personal goals (GOK what they are; fame?). > 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. Cool; I watch with interest! M --
From: rossum on 7 Mar 2010 05:03 On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 08:52:21 +0000, Mark Murray <w.h.oami(a)example.com> wrote: >He's not in it for the maths - the maths is a tool to his personal goals >(GOK what they are; fame?). As I see it, James _knows_ that he is great, special, exceptional etc. He has decided that his greatness resides in his mathematical skills. Unfortunately, either through ignorance or malice the world refuses to acknowledge James' mathematical prowess. James' goal is to get the rest of the world to agree with him that he is one of the world's greatest mathematicians. rossum
From: master1729 on 6 Mar 2010 22:15 MichaelW wrote : > On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:08:46 -0800, 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. > > > <snip> > > > > James Harris > > Just to cut short the usual abusive posting and get > back to maths I took > the "axiom" and used it to derive the following: > > Let p(k) be the k-th prime (for example p(5) = 11). > The number of twin > prime pairs up to (p(k))^2 trends to h*k^2 where h is > a constant with a > value of about 0.291. > > For example p(11)=31. The number of twin prime pairs > to 31^2=961 is 35. > The approximation above sets it at about 11^2*.291 = > 35.211 which is a > pretty good match. I have run up to p(1000) and > charted the results and > it does indeed appear to stay increasingly close to > just over 0.29. > > I found this to be a surprising and cute result. I am > sure it is known > but have not been able to find a reference so if > someone has seen this > before could they let me know? > > Anyway the point is that there is some real working > maths underlying > James' work. > > Regards, Michael W. > intrestingly , i arrived at the same result while proving RH and Andrica. I did assume the second Hardy-Littlewood conjecture though. and i didnt get a closed form for 0.29 , did you ? your very different from that other michael W ( musatov ). do you publish on arxiv ? im still looking for a co-author , are you intrested ? regards the master tommy1729
From: JSH on 7 Mar 2010 10:50
On Mar 7, 5:59 am, master1729 <tommy1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Arthur wrote : > > > > > > > On Mar 5, 6:08 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> 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. > > > I don't know if your level of intelligence can > > comprehend what I am > > saying, but I wil try: > > > You seem to say that you have discovered a new > > "axiom" in number > > theory. For it to be a new axiom, it is necessary to: > > > 1. Prove that it cannot be derived from the already > > existing axioms as > > a theorem > > > 2. Explain why you believe that this axiom/fact is > > correct, and there > > exist no counterexamples to it. > > > What seems to have happened is that you were trying > > to prove some > > theorem but couldn't. So, you declared it a "new > > axiom". That's a very > > lazy way of approaching science. What if every time a > > teacher gives a > > homework to high school or colege students to prove > > something, the > > students declare that no proofs are needed because > > these homework > > problems are "new axioms"? > > yeah , that approach is unacceptable in number theory ! > > in set theory however it is commonplace and it is considered good math. > > its even called foundation ! > > weird hmm Oh funny! Cool reply. Reality of course is that I first wondered if primes might have no preference with each other by residue and argued about it on math newsgroups over THREE AND A HALF YEARS AGO and the wandered off to do other things!!! With over three years in incubation when I finally for some reason came back to the issue it dawned on me that I had an axiom!!! Yeah!!!!!!!! My own axiom. A crowning achievement to go with the rest of MY MATH. And yes, for people who actually study mathematical history it does tend to take YEARS to process for all the really big things, so the other poster does have a point in that regard that you can't just throw up your hands and yell axiom at everything. Oh yeah, other funny thing is that real major mathematical discoverers never have just one thing. It's another reason to question Andrew Wiles. The best never stop at one. There are no one-hit wonders in major mathematical discovery. (An no nonsense examples like saying Abel as I say, not a major mathematical discovery in reply to all such.) None in history. James Harris |