JSH: Understanding prime gaps issue
in [Math]
|
Prev: statistical test question
Next: setting up a Math Induction template Re: Proof of the Infinitude of Perfect Numbers and infinitude of Mersenne primes #673 Correcting Math
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 15 Jul 2010 10:35 JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> writes: >> Wouldn't better evidence include, oh, someone else actually using the >> phrase and referring to your work? > > Why? Lots of people are idiots. Sure, lots of people are idiots. But it seems to me that *everyone* of those multitudes of visitors to your sites (121 countries! Oh my!) is either nefarious or an idiot. Not a single person has referred to your work publicly, as far as I know. They all either fail to see its value, or they're in on the mathematicians' secret plot (which, actually, is also stupid, since you say that eventually the truth will come out, they will lose funding, perhaps their liberties and maybe even worse). As far as I can tell, you're the only non-idiot on the planet. No wonder you've toyed with the idea that you're a space alien sent here to judge humanity. -- Jesse F. Hughes "When you try to kiss a girl, it's hard not to get spit on the girl." -- Quincy P. Hughes, age 3 (almost 4)
From: Tim Little on 15 Jul 2010 10:45 On 2010-07-15, JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Search on: prime residue Plenty of stuff, none of which is yours. > Search on: residue axiom Some stuff of yours, some physics stuff (kinematical residue axioms), and a ton of stuff where the words are used in proximity to each other but not in the same phrase. > If prime residues show no preference then you can resolve several > supposedly outstanding big problems in number theory including a > Millennium prize problem so supposedly that answer alone is worth $1 > million US from the Clay Institute. Too bad you can't prove it. Or even state it coherently. > Nobody cares. Exactly correct. Nobody cares about search results where you make up a phrase then search for it later. - Tim
From: JSH on 15 Jul 2010 19:59 On Jul 15, 7:45 am, Tim Little <t...(a)little-possums.net> wrote: > On 2010-07-15, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Search on: prime residue > > Plenty of stuff, none of which is yours. So you're not using Google? I do that search and my math blog comes up #6. > > > Search on: residue axiom > > Some stuff of yours, some physics stuff (kinematical residue axioms), > and a ton of stuff where the words are used in proximity to each other > but not in the same phrase. > > > If prime residues show no preference then you can resolve several > > supposedly outstanding big problems in number theory including a > > Millennium prize problem so supposedly that answer alone is worth $1 > > million US from the Clay Institute. > > Too bad you can't prove it. Or even state it coherently. You don't prove axioms. No one does. No one ever has. No one ever will. That's why they're called axioms. > > Nobody cares. > > Exactly correct. Nobody cares about search results where you make up > a phrase then search for it later. > > - Tim Like definition of mathematical proof? Do a search on prime gaps, or prime gap and I don't and I'm NOT in the top 10 on Google when I just checked. How do you explain that? Now do the search on: prime gap equation Is that a made-up phrase then? James Harris
From: Joshua Cranmer on 15 Jul 2010 20:39 On 07/15/2010 07:59 PM, JSH wrote: > You don't prove axioms. Perhaps not within the system in which they are defined. ZFC + Prime Residue Axiom is not a standard proof system, as it is not known if this axiom could be proven false using ZFC. I have seen attempts at proving axioms to see if a set of axioms could be reduced. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: David Bernier on 16 Jul 2010 00:51
MichaelW wrote: > On Jul 16, 11:52 am, David Bernier<david...(a)videotron.ca> wrote: [...] >> Yes. There is interesting material in the old sci.math posts, for >> example Tim Peters on counts of gaps of 2, 4 and 6 in the sequence >> of primes: >> >> <http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=5084023&tstart=0> . >> >> David Bernier- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > David, > > Thanks for the link. I was pleased to read an article of that quality > and displeased to see it is 4 years old. So much rehashing! There are > terrible folk (like me) who suspect that James is trying to outlive > his opponents. He posted recently that he will wait 20 years if > required. > > This is why I suggested an archive of the best articles for those like > myself who have come late to the discussions. My suggestion was > however met with silence, which is fine. > > On the up side this particular thread has generated enough reading > material to keep me going over the weekend. *This* is what a sci.math > thread should be about! > > Regards, Michael W, who feels like he is turning into a grumpy old man. Hello Michael, I believe one of your suggestions was an FAQ. There could be one maintainer (for example you) and any number of contributors. If you didn't want to risk having a valuable email address spammed, you could get a Gmail email account where contributors would send suggestions. The address could be primeresidue(a)gmail.com, or something like that. Presumably, the FAQ could have a name resembling "JSH deja-maths FAQ". There could be sections, and resemble Wikis by having links to original archived articles, with descriptive terms. The right ratio of English text and math notation to links is not obvious. But the FAQ could be improved over time. I think it can be worthwhile: some curious people might like to see James's PrimeCountH.java Java source-code, or other miscellany. I'm not good with web design or Wikis. With an FAQ posted once or twice a month on old JSH news, I could contribute by contacting the FAQ maintainer. I look forward to comments on your proposal, a JSH deja-maths FAQ within sci.math, etc. David Bernier |