JSH: Twin primes
in [Math]
|
From: amzoti on 3 Feb 2010 00:15 On Feb 2, 8:21 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 1, 5:32 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 1, 9:16 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 1, 5:02 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 1, 8:51 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > The twin primes probability result is such an overwhelming one as > > > > > mathematicians have been working for years building up data in support > > > > > of it. > > > > > The GC result is such an overwhelming one as > > > > mathematicians have been working for years building up data in support > > > > of it. > > > > Except the prime residue axiom leads to a proof that Goldbach's > > > Conjecture is false. > > > Wooosh! > > > The point is that both the GC and the "prime residue axiom" > > are supported by lots of numerical evidence. > > Why do you conclude that one is true and the other false? > > > - William Hughes > > It is self-evident that primes do not have a residue preference. > > For instance, why would 3 wish for primes to have 1 as a residue > versus 2? I use "wish" deliberately to ask for intent. > > If there is no intent, then by what mechanism could such a preference > result? > > That is what makes an axiom--self-evidence. > > In contrast Goldbach's Conjecture is not self-evident. It does not > require intent to ask if every composite can be written as the product > of 2 primes. > > But worse, with the prime residue axiom that is self-evident, you can > disprove Goldbach's Conjecture. > > I notice that no one has asked how. > > Wow. Can you believe that? Not a single question as to how. > > 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. > > But curiosity requires humanity. > > James Harris Can you tell me how to make a better martini using primes and residues? Screw proving GC, I want better prime martinis!
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 3 Feb 2010 06:15 JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> writes: > > It is self-evident that primes do not have a residue preference. > > For instance, why would 3 wish for primes to have 1 as a residue > versus 2? I use "wish" deliberately to ask for intent. > > If there is no intent, then by what mechanism could such a preference > result? > > That is what makes an axiom--self-evidence. It is similarly self-evident that there are as many even primes as odd primes. For instance, why would the even numbers wish not to be prime? If there is no intent, then by what mechanism could even numbers avoid primeness? That is what makes an axiom--self-evidence. (James, I really *love* the new psychological approach to number theory. It's *fun*!) -- Jesse F. Hughes "[M]eta-goedelisation as the essence of the globalised dictatorship by denial of sense." -- Ludovico Van makes some sort of point.
From: David C. Ullrich on 3 Feb 2010 07:06 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?
From: William Hughes on 3 Feb 2010 07:31 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. - William Hughes
From: master1729 on 2 Feb 2010 22:51
> On Feb 1, 5:32 pm, William Hughes > <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 1, 9:16 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 1, 5:02 pm, William Hughes > <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 1, 8:51 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > The twin primes probability result is such an > overwhelming one as > > > > > mathematicians have been working for years > building up data in support > > > > > of it. > > > > > > The GC result is such an overwhelming one as > > > > mathematicians have been working for years > building up data in support > > > > of it. > > > > > Except the prime residue axiom leads to a proof > that Goldbach's > > > Conjecture is false. > > > > Wooosh! > > > > The point is that both the GC and the "prime > residue axiom" > > are supported by lots of numerical evidence. > > Why do you conclude that one is true and the other > false? > > > > - William Hughes > > It is self-evident that primes do not have a residue > preference. > > For instance, why would 3 wish for primes to have 1 > as a residue > versus 2? I use "wish" deliberately to ask for > intent. > > If there is no intent, then by what mechanism could > such a preference > result? > > That is what makes an axiom--self-evidence. > > In contrast Goldbach's Conjecture is not > self-evident. It does not > require intent to ask if every composite can be > written as the product > of 2 primes. > > But worse, with the prime residue axiom that is > self-evident, you can > disprove Goldbach's Conjecture. > > I notice that no one has asked how. > > Wow. Can you believe that? Not a single question as > to how. > > 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. ok james , how do you disprove goldbach. lol > > But curiosity requires humanity. > > > James Harris |