JSH: Twin primes
in [Math]
|
From: Mensanator on 3 Feb 2010 17:39 On Feb 3, 12:48 pm, mstem...(a)walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote: > In article <kkpim51n7oc8ptg8m6ets0o9a6had6k...(a)4ax.com>, David C. Ullrich <ullr...(a)math.okstate.edu> writes: > > >On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:13:36 +0200, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > >>David C. Ullrich <ullr...(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. Don't bother, JSH has already solved it (well, perhaps not actually solved it, but it follows from his work. All that remains is the grunt work. Don't expect JSH to do it. He's The Theory Guy.) > > -- > Michael F. Stemper > #include <Standard_Disclaimer> > 2 + 2 = 5, for sufficiently large values of 2
From: Usher73 on 3 Feb 2010 08:42 My prime number, 73, is rather shy, and prefers not to be moduloed, nor to modulo others.
From: JSH on 3 Feb 2010 20:41 On Feb 3, 7:46 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's been public. > (It stands to reason, of course, that the Cabal > would be helpless to suppress something that has > not been made public.) > > Jim Burns It's been public for years. I came up with the twin primes probability result back in 2006, continued with it to disproving Goldbach's Conjecture, put all on my math blog and moved on. Oh, back then I did web searches on the idea of random with twin primes and some things came up, so it's not my idea first. Seems some mathematicians came up with it years ago. Fascinating, eh? My analysis indicates that some in math society may believe their dominance is near completion, but their takeover of physics is still problematic, so some of them may have been sabotaging the Large Hadron Collider. In one case claiming it was birds, of all things. I'm doing an endrun around them. One step is protecting the LHC from further sabotage. Later this month it will begin running again, and soon it may be possible to begin tearing down the system that has been built up so carefully to produce false info to hold on to bogus theories. These things are more interesting done suddenly. Years of preparation to destroy careers in days. Governments have to be involved. A lot of these issues are national security issues anyway. Your ignorance of what your government may or may not know is not a protection for you. Have a nice day. Go fill out a funding proposal or something. James Harris
From: spudnik on 3 Feb 2010 21:24 could some one, please, describe what the axiom says, in non-HSJ-speak? --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com thus quoth: How recent changes in the solar dynamo are affecting our interplanetary 'weather' by J.G. Luhmann The photospheric magnetic field provides the key boundary conditions for the interplanetary medium, including the solar wind plasma and the interplanetary magnetic field. Thus any changes in the solar interior that affect the emergence, dispersion, and decay of active region magnetic fields, or the evolution of the those fields, can have locally measurable effects. Each solar cycle for which we have sufficient solar and in-situ observations has been somewhat different, but in the most recent cycle the solar dynamo has produced a generally weaker photospheric field together with a spatial distribution of photospheric flux that differs from the previous two. The results give us a better appreciation for how the dynamo affects our 'space weather', together with any other effects that might be produced by related solar irradiance changes. Tuesday, 02 February 2010 3853 Slichter Hall Refreshments at 3:45 PM
From: David R Tribble on 3 Feb 2010 22:16
JSH wrote: > My analysis indicates that some in math society may believe their > dominance is near completion, but their takeover of physics is still > problematic, so some of them may have been sabotaging the Large Hadron > Collider. In one case claiming it was birds, of all things. > > One step is protecting the LHC from further sabotage. Later this > month it will begin running again, and soon it may be possible to > begin tearing down the system that has been built up so carefully to > produce false info to hold on to bogus theories. > > Years of preparation to destroy careers in days. So the LHC is going to destroy mathematics. That must be one awfully, awfully expensive experiment. I'll bet the physicists running it are highly paid, though, and firmly entrenched in their government-funded jobs. |