JSH: Random distributions and prime numbers
in [Physics]
|
From: JSH on 11 Feb 2010 19:45 On Feb 11, 3:27 pm, Junoexpress <mtbrenne...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Oh, wow, well there you DID say something. Of that I'm sure. > 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. Ouch. > 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 Ouch. Ouch. > 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. You're just jealous of me defining mathematical proof. Go to Google (has to be Google) and search on: define mathematical proof If I could get a definition read around the world defining mathematical proof, then I think I can manage axioms. Besides, arguing on this issue is just lighthearted fun. The prime residue axiom leads to predictions. In science that's what it's all about, the predictions. Theory is only useful in that it leads to useful predictions. Science is the art of prediction. (Hey, who said that originally? I just did a quick search and didn't get the originator.) James Harris
From: JSH on 11 Feb 2010 19:49 On Feb 11, 7:23 am, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 Nope. With the simplest probability calculation they tend to be 1.12 times the actual count over time based on what others have posted. I noted that was because of blocked states with higher residues with the larger primes in the interval. To quantum mechanics people that's not a complicated thought to ponder. > you know why they are wrong, the important point > is that they are wrong.). End of story. Actually, in physics getting that close isn't necessarily a terrible thing. And if that ratio holds being able to just divide by 1.12 means you can still predict even closer! Remember, prediction is what matters. If a theory provides useful predictions then it's a valuable theory. James Harris
From: William Hughes on 11 Feb 2010 22:08 On Feb 11, 8:49 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 11, 7:23 am, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > Nope. With the simplest probability calculation they tend to be 1.12 > times the actual count over time based on what others have posted. I.e. wrong. > > I noted that was because of blocked states with higher residues with > the larger primes in the interval. > You think you know why the predictions are wrong. They are still wrong. JSH: Well if the predictions are wrong then JSH: there is no further argument. End of story. Are your predictions wrong? Please start your answer Yes or No. - William Hughes
From: BURT on 12 Feb 2010 02:09 On Feb 11, 7:08 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 11, 8:49 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 11, 7:23 am, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > Nope. With the simplest probability calculation they tend to be 1.12 > > times the actual count over time based on what others have posted. > > I.e. wrong. > > > > > I noted that was because of blocked states with higher residues with > > the larger primes in the interval. > > You think you know why the predictions are wrong. They are still > wrong. > > JSH: Well if the predictions are wrong then > JSH: there is no further argument. End of story. > > Are your predictions wrong? Please start your answer Yes or No. > > - William Hughes Prime numbers are really "roots" of every integer quantity. Mitch Raemsch
From: Richard Tobin on 12 Feb 2010 05:59
In article <b899990f-0dd0-46ce-b468-57844c33e752(a)v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> wrote: >What I call the prime residue axiom leads to very specific >predictions. Where can I find a precise statement of this axiom? As a mathematical formula, not as words. (So that it can, for example, be used in an automated proof checker.) -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind. |