JSH: Twin primes
in [Math]
|
From: JSH on 7 Feb 2010 23:44 On Feb 7, 12:01 pm, marcus_b <marcus_bruck...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 12:46 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 7, 1:23 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 6, 4:15 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > > Does it not bother you that this calculation is wrong? > > > > > - William Hughes > > > > Wrong? > > > Yes wrong. You calculate a non-zero probability. > > > - William Hughes > > Well, it should be nonzero. There is after all one > prime triple. Correct. > But your point, which has gone right over the Harris > head in a mighty whoosh, is that Harris's logic applies > to show that the probability of prime triples of any size > is nonzero, i.e., there are infinitely many of them. No. That is simply not correct. > He doesn't see this. He doesn't see it. The logic > somehow escapes him. Not because he can't get it, > but because he doesn't want to. > > Marcus. Seems neither of you understand probability. Ok, probability 101: you look at POSSIBLE cases for probability. For instance, if you flip a coin it can be heads or tails. But what if some cases are impossible? Why would you include them in a probability calculation? James Harris
From: William Hughes on 8 Feb 2010 00:29 JSH reasoning If a method applied to something not known to be impossible produces a non-zero probability this is a proof that it it possible. The fact that the same method applied to something known to be impossible produces a non-zero probability does not bother him. - William Hughes
From: JSH on 8 Feb 2010 22:24
On Feb 5, 2:44 am, Rotwang <sg...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > On 5 Feb, 05:07, MichaelW <ms...(a)tpg.com.au> wrote: > > > > > [a whole load of stuff, then this] > > > As you can see the ratio of the prediction to the actual value stays > > pretty close to about 1.12. > > This number is rather familiar to those of use who were following > James's threads a few years back. See the following article[1], and if > you're after more info then it's worth looking at Tim Peters' posts > from around August 2006, especially those that mention "Mertens". > > [1]http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.math/msg/95688f21176359b1 I think that link is telling for people who wonder what I've faced from posters who would work HARD to obfuscate anything and everything, from the perspective of years later. Their goal in retrospect clearly was burying new approaches. I merely walked away for a few years. Given what you've learned this time, now read his post carefully. So the idea of using the count of primes in an interval with the probability from assuming the primes have no residue preference relative to each other is over three years old. There is no citation I've yet seen of anyone else in human history doing the twin primes probability in my particular way. Posters assumed they'd buried the idea. Which was their clear intent. Now I have the prime residue axiom, and they're trying again. And you wonder how I pondered at times if they were aliens? They appear to be enemies of the human species in its quest for knowledge. Wouldn't you wonder as well, given how dedicated they are at such a task? James Harris |