JSH: Random distributions and prime numbers
in [Physics]
|
From: William Hughes on 11 Feb 2010 00:00 On Feb 10, 11:46 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >I'm interested in prediction. > > That's what scientists do. Mathematicians may not understand that, > but it is basic to science. > > What I call the prime residue axiom leads to highly specific > predictions. > Yes, wrong predictions. ( You claim to be able to fix them, but so what? A fix will not change the "prime residue axiom" which leads to the original incorrect predictions.) However, you care more about your "axiom" than predictions. - William Hughes
From: JSH on 11 Feb 2010 10:04 On Feb 10, 9:00 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 10, 11:46 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >I'm interested in prediction. > > > > > That's what scientists do. Mathematicians may not understand that, > > but it is basic to science. > > > What I call the prime residue axiom leads to highly specific > > predictions. > > Yes, wrong predictions. ( You claim to be able to fix them, Well if the predictions are wrong then there is no further argument. End of story. Ok, let me explain the perspective of a scientist: correct theory leads to useful prediction. Science is the art of prediction. If I'm taking a scientific perspective, and claiming my prime residue axiom leads to highly specific predictions about prime number behavior, then naturally one would hold me to that statement, and if it's not true, end of story. It's quite simple. No emotion required. No histrionics. No endless debate. Which is a reason why a scientific perspective can be so wonderful. I know plenty of scientists love it. James Harris
From: William Hughes on 11 Feb 2010 10:23 On Feb 11, 11:04 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Well if the predictions are wrong then there is no further argument. >End of story. Your prime residue axiom makes predictions about the density of the twin primes. As you acknowledge, these predictions are wrong (It does not matter that you think you know why they are wrong, the important point is that they are wrong.). End of story. - William Hughes
From: Mark Murray on 11 Feb 2010 13:50 On 11/02/2010 15:04, JSH wrote: > If I'm taking a scientific perspective, and claiming my prime residue > axiom leads to highly specific predictions about prime number > behavior, then naturally one would hold me to that statement, and if > it's not true, end of story. > > It's quite simple. No emotion required. No histrionics. No endless > debate. So when you are worong, you won't (any more) enter into emotional, histrionic behaviour? You won't endlessly debate the undeniable? > Which is a reason why a scientific perspective can be so wonderful. I > know plenty of scientists love it. Unlike you? M
From: Junoexpress on 11 Feb 2010 18:27
On Feb 10, 9:05 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 10, 5:55 pm, Junoexpress <mtbrenne...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I defined mathematical proof. I think I know what an axiom is. I've > also had over 3 years to ponder this subject. > > James Harris You may THINK you know what an axiom is, but I KNOW that you do not. An axiom is not something that is "self-evident". I've already given you a very simple example that even you should be able to understand. Since I know that you're understanding of math only extends as far as Wikipedia, here's a site you can go to educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom And for the love of God James, please don't go making up your own stupid definition of the word "axiom": your writing is already so poor that it's almost impossible to understand as it is. HTH, M |