JSH: Maybe they're fakes?
in [Math]
|
Prev: JSH: Poll: Collected responses to JSH work in one place?
Next: Really Poor Wiki Article On Hard & Soft Science
From: Rotwang on 14 Jul 2010 14:08 Jesse F. Hughes wrote: > JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> prime gap equation = resolution of Twin Primes Conjecture > > You keep saying this. You have the prime gap equation, so why not > resolve the conjecture? Keep up, Jesse. From last night: My claim is of an accomplishment that not only encompasses the Twin Prime Conjecture--I've proven it-- [...] Message ID: <5cb3e8e5-190f-4e11-a3b4-87b49a3592c8(a)h8g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
From: JSH on 14 Jul 2010 19:53 On Jul 14, 7:37 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > prime gap equation = resolution of Twin Primes Conjecture > > You keep saying this. You have the prime gap equation, so why not > resolve the conjecture? Um, that's BEEN one of my claims for the last few years that I'd proven the Twin Primes Conjecture, so it's the Twin Primes Theorem, but one would think you'd already know given that you claim to keep up. My results now cover most of number theory. The prime residue axiom leads immediately to proof of the Twin Primes Conjecture. It leads somewhat more subtly to disproof of Goldbach's Conjecture, so that is false. But I also like to say that one is more tentative as I don't like that result. (So I ponder ways around that conclusion.) Interesting though that you were not aware, when I've noted it before. The prime residue axiom is a REALLY BIG DEAL. Which is probably why it so dominates search results. Search: prime residue axiom The world got it. You I guess did not. How many of you I wonder are now aware of how big a deal the PRA is? It's probably one of the most far reaching axioms in the history of mathematics. IT is a REALLY big deal. James Harris
From: Joshua Cranmer on 14 Jul 2010 20:40 On 07/14/2010 07:53 PM, JSH wrote: > On Jul 14, 7:37 am, "Jesse F. Hughes"<je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: >> JSH<jst...(a)gmail.com> writes: >>> prime gap equation = resolution of Twin Primes Conjecture >> >> You keep saying this. You have the prime gap equation, so why not >> resolve the conjecture? > > Um, that's BEEN one of my claims for the last few years that I'd > proven the Twin Primes Conjecture, so it's the Twin Primes Theorem, > but one would think you'd already know given that you claim to keep > up. Here's how to know if your theorem is correct: 1. Download Coq (or any other theorem prover). 1a. If not Coq, then post your selected theorem prover before you start working on it to allow others to assess its accuracy (i.e., it doesn't have any backdoors). 2. Use it to demonstrate that your conjectured "proof" is correct. 3. Demonstrate on Usenet, i.e., with full examples, that you have done steps 1 and 2. Automated theorem proving was used to assuage people about the Four Colors Theorem; it should be able to settle your result, assuming that it is in fact correct. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 14 Jul 2010 20:42 JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Jul 14, 7:37 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: >> JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> writes: >> > prime gap equation = resolution of Twin Primes Conjecture >> >> You keep saying this. You have the prime gap equation, so why not >> resolve the conjecture? > > Um, that's BEEN one of my claims for the last few years that I'd > proven the Twin Primes Conjecture, so it's the Twin Primes Theorem, > but one would think you'd already know given that you claim to keep > up. I guess I don't recall you saying so explicitly. Even archivists can miss a hunk of mathematical wisdom here or there. > My results now cover most of number theory. The prime residue axiom > leads immediately to proof of the Twin Primes Conjecture. It leads > somewhat more subtly to disproof of Goldbach's Conjecture, so that is > false. But I also like to say that one is more tentative as I don't > like that result. (So I ponder ways around that conclusion.) > > Interesting though that you were not aware, when I've noted it before. > > The prime residue axiom is a REALLY BIG DEAL. Which is probably why > it so dominates search results. Yeah, probably so. It's huge. But I do wonder -- search results are, of course, a great indication that your work is important and likely correct, but another great indication that the world is actually taking notice would be if, oh, say someone besides you mentioned your research. You know, if people were really talking about it. > Search: prime residue axiom > > The world got it. You I guess did not. How many of you I wonder are > now aware of how big a deal the PRA is? It's probably one of the most > far reaching axioms in the history of mathematics. > > IT is a REALLY big deal. I'm sure it is. -- Jesse F. Hughes "Browning, nobody with $3 million ever jokes." -- Calling All Detectives (radio serial, 1948)
From: David R Tribble on 14 Jul 2010 21:41
JSH writes: >> The prime residue axiom is a REALLY BIG DEAL. Which is probably why >> it so dominates search results. > Jesse F. Hughes wrote: > Yeah, probably so. It's huge. > > But I do wonder -- search results are, of course, a great indication > that your work is important and likely correct, but another great > indication that the world is actually taking notice would be if, oh, say > someone besides you mentioned your research. You know, if people were > really talking about it. JSH writes: >> Search: prime residue axiom > A better search is <"prime residue axiom" references harris>. http://www.google.com/#q="prime+residue+axiom"+references+harris This search eliminates most of the links where you are the only one talking about PRA. If you look at the 270+ hits from that search, you notice that there are no links that reference your PRA as a cited source. None. |