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: spudnik on 14 Jul 2010 14:24 hey, he qualified it with "supposedly," which seems to show a bit of self-reflection, if he's not just faking it, and every thing else he asserts about numbertheory (the queen of the sciences per Gauss). however, my own assertion that he is *truly* a megalomaniac, cannot stand, since I haven't really done enough of the math. so, it's mostly just a big waste of time, as well as memoryspace -- so, woo-wee, timespace wastrels! > > Even a novice math student SHOULD know that the world does not > > supposedly have a prime gap equation > False. thus&so: <deletives impleted> just don't leave a time-tunnel in the vicinity of your grandfather, if he is still alive, because he might configure what you "were about" to do, and hi to the future to prevent you, or the past to give a condom to your dad. "Granpa, it was going to be an accident ... I mean...." "But, Dad, we're Catholic!" > Scientific concensus today isn't your great grandaddy's scientific thus&so: grammar is just a part of the three Rs, the minimum you have to know, to be a literate slave -- and what some so-called Republicans call, "the basics," to impart learning-disorders amongst the rabble's youth, viz Murray and What's-his-name. thus&so: first of all, bloodletting has some current back-up ... or, at least, leeches are pretty useful in surgery. secondly, someone "above" made some statement about graphs (that is, quantification) in the harder sciences (although it seems that the soft ones use tons of statistical algorithms), and I'd like to cite the NYTimes weatherpage as a source of subliminal justification for the algorithms of the GCMers. the more qualitative aspect of that page, is the daliy vignettes on various things about weather -- n'est, mesoclimate. my random reading of this shows that cold records are at least as common as hot records, whereby goes my primary (nonquant) take on the phrase, global warming. just say, the climate, she a-changin', and rest easy! > errors as blood letting "scientists" is ridiculous. --Rep. Waxman's "new" cap&trade, same as his circa '91?... Is the House Banking Bill, before Senate, cap&trade?... les ducs d'oil! http://tarpley.net
From: Mark Murray on 15 Jul 2010 03:43 On 15/07/2010 06:02, MichaelW wrote: >> That axiom exploded across web searches when I put it up. >> >> Exploded. >> >> I was shocked when searching in Yahoo! a while back and every result >> was to a sci.math newsgroup variant in country. James; watch this. Search for the "Secondary chiral prime theorem". Which post comes up, and who should therefore be credited with it? >> The prime residue axiom by itself if true is one of the biggest >> results in the history of number theory. >> > > "If true" indeed. When I got involved in the discussions of prime gaps > my first instinct was the same as yours. However in the face of the > data (brute force counting prime pairs of various gaps) I have had to > acknowledge that my instinct was wrong. The reality is more subtle. Yeah, "if true". Axioms are definitions. I could start a (not useful) branch of mathematics by having "1 = 0" as an axiom. In that branch of maths, that axiom is undeniably true. If you need to test its truth with a proof, you don't have an axiom, you have a conjecture which, if proven, becomes a theorem. > Unfortunately the only rigorous mathematical explanation I can find is > beyond the ability of you or me. Knowing your preferences I will not > provide links. Yup. Going to the trouble of providing links is a waste of time. James has any number of excuses at his disposal for not following them. > If you assume the PNT and make a few approximations it is possible to > come up with a formula that matches the data and an explanation that > makes sense (to me at least). In fact this is what your prime gap > equation does; that was my point (6). If you accept you missed a step > you have actually got it right. Correct. Note that he is not (as he claims) the /first/ to get it right. Nor has he bothered to check or correct the work. >> I can get meaner. James Harris > > Don't doubt it. But can you get kinder? I'd like to know that too. M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: MichaelW on 15 Jul 2010 04:36 On Jul 15, 5:43 pm, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > > >> I can get meaner. James Harris > > > Don't doubt it. But can you get kinder? > > I'd like to know that too. > > M > -- > Mark "No Nickname" Murray > Notable nebbish, extreme generalist. Kind of happy with that response. It's a come back with being spiteful. I hope. The threatening part of the post read like a cross between a bad bikie movie and a drunk philosophy undergrad. I was having a lot of trouble not getting very silly with it. I doubt if anyone could read it aloud without giggling. Not me. Not you. Not anyone. Regards, Michael W.
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 15 Jul 2010 07:51 JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> writes: > The prime residue axiom asserts that primes have no residue preference > modulo other primes. > > Logically that gives you the Twin Primes Conjecture. > > That axiom exploded across web searches when I put it up. > > Exploded. > > I was shocked when searching in Yahoo! a while back and every result > was to a sci.math newsgroup variant in country. > > The prime residue axiom by itself if true is one of the biggest > results in the history of number theory. You made up a phrase ("prime residue axiom") that, as far as I know, no one else uses. Later, you search on that phrase and the hits you see refer to your posts. You conclude that the idea behind the phrase is huge, and the world is changing because of it. Wouldn't better evidence include, oh, someone else actually using the phrase and referring to your work? Anyway, let's see how it goes. As far as I can see, no one has used the phrase "natural numbers non-coalgebraic axiom" before this post. Here's the axiom: The natural numbers are not a final coalgebra for any Set endofunctor. We'll check back in a month and see whether this axiom comes up high in the search for that phrase. As far as I know, that axiom is true (but I haven't thought about coalgebras in years and could be wrong). I don't know if there's a proof for it. I'm following your program here: I think it's true and I don't know a proof, so we'll call it an axiom. -- "People think there are brilliant people at important government agencies like the NSA or CIA that will save them, when I know, sadly, that mathematicians rule the roosts in the key places in all the major government agencies, even the shadowy ones." -- James S. Harris
From: JSH on 15 Jul 2010 10:00
On Jul 15, 4:51 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > The prime residue axiom asserts that primes have no residue preference > > modulo other primes. > > > Logically that gives you the Twin Primes Conjecture. > > > That axiom exploded across web searches when I put it up. > > > Exploded. > > > I was shocked when searching in Yahoo! a while back and every result > > was to a sci.math newsgroup variant in country. > > > The prime residue axiom by itself if true is one of the biggest > > results in the history of number theory. > > You made up a phrase ("prime residue axiom") that, as far as I know, no > one else uses. Later, you search on that phrase and the hits you see > refer to your posts. Search on: prime residue Search on: residue axiom > You conclude that the idea behind the phrase is huge, and the world is > changing because of it. No. The idea IS huge. That search engine results reflect that is just kind of odd. 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. (Oh, so yeah, lots of money associated around my research. I've often found that fascinating in and of itself as not a motivator for anyone around the world. YEARS ago I offered monetary rewards for help but gave up that effort and won't repeat it. There is now no monetary reward from me outstanding for help with getting my research accepted. That ship sailed years ago...) > Wouldn't better evidence include, oh, someone else actually using the > phrase and referring to your work? Why? Lots of people are idiots. > Anyway, let's see how it goes. As far as I can see, no one has used the > phrase "natural numbers non-coalgebraic axiom" before this post. > Here's the axiom: > > The natural numbers are not a final coalgebra for any Set endofunctor.. > > We'll check back in a month and see whether this axiom comes up high in > the search for that phrase. Knock yourself out. Nobody cares. > As far as I know, that axiom is true (but I haven't thought about > coalgebras in years and could be wrong). I don't know if there's a > proof for it. I'm following your program here: I think it's true and I > don't know a proof, so we'll call it an axiom. Oh yeah, last year I WAS talking about my prime gap equation and noted that I would not allow anyone to get a prize for supposedly solving the Twin Primes Conjecture and gave three years grace on that particular result as for using it to try and end the impasse. So I will not simply settle this issue with the prime gap equation. That block remains. NO ONE is allowed to receive prizes for supposedly solving the Twin Primes Conjecture. I feel confident that the mathematical community will respect my wishes here, and try to fight their battles elsewhere. Problem is I'm not in the mood to crush such claims in mainstream media. I prefer to fight other battles. That block means that if you are doing research in that area, you are deluding yourself. The committee world of mathematics will not accept your research. You are wasting your time. James Harris |