JSH: Twin primes
in [Math]
|
From: Rotwang on 3 Feb 2010 09:35 JSH wrote: > > [...] > > But curiosity requires humanity. Right. Hence the famous saying, "curiosity killed the human".
From: James Burns on 3 Feb 2010 10:46 William Hughes wrote: > On Feb 3, 12:21 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>Even as a mental exercise, one would think that >>some of you would be curious about how you disprove >>Goldbach's Conjecture with something as simple >>as saying that primes have no residue preference. > > Please, Please, tell us how you disprove Goldbach's > Conjecture with something as simple as saying > that primes have no residue preference. Hah! That is just what the Mathematical Cabal would like, for James to make public his disproof of the Goldbach Conjecture. Then they can get to work suppressing it. (It stands to reason, of course, that the Cabal would be helpless to suppress something that has not been made public.) Jim Burns
From: William Hughes on 3 Feb 2010 11:14 On Feb 3, 11:46 am, James Burns <burns...(a)osu.edu> wrote: > William Hughes wrote: > > On Feb 3, 12:21 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>Even as a mental exercise, one would think that > >>some of you would be curious about how you disprove > >>Goldbach's Conjecture with something as simple > >>as saying that primes have no residue preference. > > > Please, Please, tell us how you disprove Goldbach's > > Conjecture with something as simple as saying > > that primes have no residue preference. > > Hah! That is just what the Mathematical Cabal would > like, for James to make public his disproof of the > Goldbach Conjecture. Then they can get to work > suppressing it. > > (It stands to reason, of course, that the Cabal > would be helpless to suppress something that has > not been made public.) > > Jim Burns THERE IS NO CABAL (Report to your nonexistent supervisor) On the other hand I suppressed six things that had not been made public before breakfast this morning. - William Hughes
From: Ludovicus on 3 Feb 2010 12:10 On 31 ene, 06:34, David C. Ullrich <ullr...(a)math.okstate.edu> wrote: > ,...because the primes are not actually random in any sense that > would make those arguments into actual proofs. > If the primes were random there are not possibility of actual proofs. Ludovicus
From: Michael Stemper on 3 Feb 2010 13:48
In article <kkpim51n7oc8ptg8m6ets0o9a6had6ks22(a)4ax.com>, David C. Ullrich <ullrich(a)math.okstate.edu> writes: >On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:13:36 +0200, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi> wrote: >>David C. Ullrich <ullrich(a)math.okstate.edu> writes: >>> Of course Ullrich's Axiom, which states that GC is false, leads to a >>> much simpler proof that GC is false. >> >>But is your axiom an "overwhelming one as mathematicians have been >>working for years building up data in support of it"? > >Yes. > >Hah, bet you thought I wouldn't have an answer for that one, eh? This "mathematics" stuff is easier than it looks. Maybe Barbie was wrong. Excuse me while I go off and prepare my paper on the Reimann Hypothesis. -- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> 2 + 2 = 5, for sufficiently large values of 2 |