JSH: Prime gap equation consequences
in [Math]
|
Prev: An exact simplification challenge - 97 (hypergeom/EllipticF)
Next: e, pi and the 10th degree polynomial
From: JSH on 24 Jul 2010 11:30 On Jul 23, 11:25 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 24, 1:28 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Because I have a claim of having a prime gap equation it turns out > > that there are a LOT of things that must follow with that claim: > > > 1. The prime gap equation settles the twin primes conjecture. > > > 2. The theory with the prime gap equation must handle first > > occurrence of gaps, like when should you first see a prime gap of 100? > > > 3. The theory with the prime gap equation then also handles maximal > > gap within a particular interval. > > > 4. The prime gap equation has to accurately predict for ANY even > > positive gap. > > > 5. The prime gap equation settles Goldbach's conjecture. > > > So of course there are lots of places to attack such a claim!!! > > > Which is why it's also a big deal for me to give a grace period. I > > actually am allowing some people their livelihoods. > > > But I'm also curious about a world of billions of people who could be > > so limited with such an interesting area--primes. > > > Can an entire world except me fail? > > > Wouldn't it be more interesting to answer that question than any > > other? > > > Am I the best out of billions? > > > As if in a few years time I DO prove that an entire world of billions > > of people failed, except one, what might that say? > > > If billions of people can't work out some simple results with prime > > numbers, what can they do, really? > > > James Harris > > What exactly is it that you claim to have proved? The gaps between primes are about random only and in fact may define random for everything including our physical world. The prime gap equation is simply a probability based calculations for any even prime gap, which has with it some theory to handle when a prime gap can first occur. If I'm correct then further "research" on prime gaps is specious. But possibly lucrative to people who may be completely lost in that they no longer give a damn--all they want is to get paid, like with funding grants for "research" in an area where nothing can come of such research--in a way a perfect area then for a charlatan. Their "research" has no possible end date for a valid result. Maybe someone will come up with a faux proof for some prize so I've forbidden that, and noted I'd try to collapse the fraud immediately if that occurred so mathematicians are forbidden from claiming proof of the twin primes conjecture. James Harris
From: Mark Murray on 24 Jul 2010 13:04 On 24/07/2010 16:30, JSH wrote: > If I'm correct then further "research" on prime gaps is specious. What if you are /not/ correct? How would you tell? M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: JSH on 24 Jul 2010 13:26 On Jul 24, 10:04 am, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > On 24/07/2010 16:30, JSH wrote: > > > If I'm correct then further "research" on prime gaps is specious. > > What if you are /not/ correct? How would you tell? Yuck, you know no math, failed when challenged to show your work, trotting out an answer from a computer program, and now you ask a stupid question. Answer is: my prime gap equation would fail against the data if wrong. So anyone with access to prime gap data can check it at any time. And to see my prime gap equation, search on: prime gap equation Issues here are black and white. That data set is a big one and a rather famous one within the math world. Nicely has quite a lot of data that he's piled up himself. So my position is as bold as it gets and does not require preachy little bitches asking stupid questions and damn you if you ask me to apologize here!!! (For readers wondering, see other threads where I have to call out the "Mark Murray" poster who appears ready to push moral rules on sci.math posters, like apologizing.) He knows no math. Can show no math. But he will preach to you. And ask stupid questions. And post and post and post and post. His moronic posts fill my threads. Guess he also doesn't have a life of his own so he hangs on my coattails. James Harris
From: Joshua Cranmer on 24 Jul 2010 13:52 On 07/24/2010 01:26 PM, JSH wrote: > Yuck, you know no math, failed when challenged to show your work, > trotting out an answer from a computer program, and now you ask a > stupid question. Methinks you have a short memory? You have definitely failed to show your work when challenged, and you have consistently posted results from your computer program (e.g., your surrogate factoring work: I do remember posts consisting of copy-pasted output from that program). The "stupid question" part is a bit subjective, but, seeing as how several of your... speculative questions have asked as what we would do in rather unlikely scenarios, I think there are some candidates for that part though. I would recommend, when trying an ad hominem attack, to choose qualities to pick on that could not be legitimately applied to yourself as well. > He knows no math. Can show no math. But he will preach to you. And > ask stupid questions. > > And post and post and post and post. His moronic posts fill my > threads. > > Guess he also doesn't have a life of his own so he hangs on my > coattails. Now, how much of this stuff do you think could apply to yourself? Especially the "post and post" bit. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: Mark Murray on 24 Jul 2010 14:31
On 24/07/2010 18:26, JSH wrote: > On Jul 24, 10:04 am, Mark Murray<w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: >> On 24/07/2010 16:30, JSH wrote: >> >>> If I'm correct then further "research" on prime gaps is specious. >> >> What if you are /not/ correct? How would you tell? > > Yuck, you know no math, failed when challenged to show your work, > trotting out an answer from a computer program, and now you ask a > stupid question. So what? The question was answered, and it wasn't the answer you were hoping for. > Answer is: my prime gap equation would fail against the data if wrong. So, if your equation were out by say, 12%, it would be wrong, correct? > So anyone with access to prime gap data can check it at any time. This has been done. You are out by 12%. > And to see my prime gap equation, search on: prime gap equation Been there, done that. See MichaelW's counter-examples. > Issues here are black and white. That data set is a big one and a > rather famous one within the math world. Nicely has quite a lot of > data that he's piled up himself. .... and which you lack the capacity to understand. > So my position is as bold as it gets and does not require preachy > little bitches asking stupid questions and damn you if you ask me to > apologize here!!! > > (For readers wondering, see other threads where I have to call out the > "Mark Murray" poster who appears ready to push moral rules on sci.math > posters, like apologizing.) I guess I struck a sore point. > He knows no math. Can show no math. But he will preach to you. And > ask stupid questions. "Stupid", only because you cannot answer them. Lame rationalisation. > And post and post and post and post. His moronic posts fill my > threads. > > Guess he also doesn't have a life of his own so he hangs on my > coattails. Yeah. That must be it. M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist. |