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: JSH on 14 Jul 2010 23:46 On Jul 14, 5:42 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > JSH <jst...(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. How do you know they aren't? > > 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. The point is that I have already said that my prime gap research proves the Twin Primes Conjecture and disproves Goldbach's Conjecture (but I don't like that conclusion). Fascinating for you to miss that, eh? I've said it for years now. So, why would search engines go nuts over a result that you can't seem to even focus on? If I'm right about the ring of algebraic integers vs complex numbers and I also have the prime residue axiom and if any mathematicians DARED discuss it openly, what might happen? There has to be a code of silence. It's all or nothing for math people now, which is my point. So I apply breaking force, and you have to claim there is none. I note indications of worldwide interest, and you claim it means nothing. And the cool, sad, scary thing about it is, math people are kind of good at holding the line. Which just means the world has to hit harder later. It will have no choice. Highly intelligent people are working hard here. Lot of indications they are doing it deliberately. It is a statement to the entire world and my point is, I think the world WILL eventually answer. It will answer you all and my point again is the world can check EVERY SINGLE MATHEMATICIAN on the planet with a microscope. They can go over all of your hard drives. They can check notebooks. They can interview. They can talk to parents, friends, girlfriends. They can review everything done by every single math person on the planet if the world wishes because it is the world. There is no protection in numbers here because you have 6.8 billion people versus all of you. You have deluded yourselves for years. You have no protection in numbers here. James Harris
From: Tim Little on 15 Jul 2010 01:12 On 2010-07-14, JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The prime residue axiom leads immediately to proof of the Twin > Primes Conjecture. The Twin Primes Conjecture is based on a theory that does not include possibly contradictory extra axioms. You have not solved the Twin Primes Conjecture, you have just constructed a different theory which proves something like it (and may also prove everything else including 0=1). Once you start messing with the underlying theories and therefore definitions of numbers, anything is provable whether it is true or false of the usual natural numbers. That isn't interesting. There are plenty of theories in which something like the Twin Primes Conjecture is provable. Here is one: Peano Arithmetic plus the axiom "~Ax(x=x)". - Tim
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 17 Jul 2010 09:02 Tim Little <tim(a)little-possums.net> writes: > The Twin Primes Conjecture is based on a theory that does not include > possibly contradictory extra axioms. Based how? -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Tim Little on 17 Jul 2010 23:06 On 2010-07-17, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi> wrote: > Tim Little <tim(a)little-possums.net> writes: >> The Twin Primes Conjecture is based on a theory that does not include >> possibly contradictory extra axioms. > > Based how? Just to clarify, by "theory" I did not mean a *formal* theory with specified syntax, axioms, and rules of inference. I mean in the sense of a collection of mathematical concepts and logical consequences. For example, the concepts of natural numbers, addition, multiplication, prime number, and twin prime. One of the logical consequences is that there are infinitely many primes. It is not yet known whether it is a logical consequence of those that there are infinitely many twin primes. James pulls out a new axiom and declares that taking it along with the rest proves that there are infinitely many twin primes. Who cares? That wasn't the question. On top of that, he hasn't even been able to state his axiom with any precision. Not that anyone would care if he could, as it is simply not relevant, but it is amusing to point out obvious blunders when he tries. - Tim
From: JSH on 17 Jul 2010 23:19
On Jul 17, 8:06 pm, Tim Little <t...(a)little-possums.net> wrote: > On 2010-07-17, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > > > Tim Little <t...(a)little-possums.net> writes: > >> The Twin Primes Conjecture is based on a theory that does not include > >> possibly contradictory extra axioms. > > > Based how? > > Just to clarify, by "theory" I did not mean a *formal* theory with > specified syntax, axioms, and rules of inference. I mean in the sense > of a collection of mathematical concepts and logical consequences. > For example, the concepts of natural numbers, addition, > multiplication, prime number, and twin prime. One of the logical > consequences is that there are infinitely many primes. It is not yet > known whether it is a logical consequence of those that there are > infinitely many twin primes. > > James pulls out a new axiom and declares that taking it along with the > rest proves that there are infinitely many twin primes. Who cares? People who want to understand mathematics should care. Also I realized the prime residue axiom WAS an axiom as it is self- evident, and not provable by other axioms. Also it is not disprovable should be noted. > That wasn't the question. On top of that, he hasn't even been able to > state his axiom with any precision. Not that anyone would care if he > could, as it is simply not relevant, but it is amusing to point out > obvious blunders when he tries. Like what? I've put up a new thread talking about the why of prime gaps. Examples of "blunders" would be appreciated!!! James Harris |