for x,y > 7 twins(x+y) <= twins(x) + twins(y)
in [Math]
|
From: victoria Bippart on 15 Apr 2010 15:31 is ten to the 500th power, like, longer than the volume of Known Universe Total Quanta? thus: the clocks are distorted by the curvature that was demonstrated by Aristarchus, and surveyed o'er Alsace-Lorraine by Gauss (with his theodolite .-) yes, time is not a dimension, or it is the only dimension, whereby we observe the others (Bucky's formulation). not only was Newton's law actually found by Hooke, but it was derived directly from Kepler's orbital constraints (and, Kepler thought that Sun was perhaps magnetic on planets, which may-well turn out to be more accurate than "gravitons" -- as long as you get rid of Newton's silly corpuscles, "photons" -- and his platonic ordering of the planets has alos proved to be more-or-less correct (if I could find that article, that gave a formula that was effective for all moons, as well). BTW, use quaternions for special rel., which shows the uniqueness of the "real, scalar, inner product" time/ dimension of Hamilton. > Similarly it has all processes slowed down, but time is a simple absolute > orthogonal independent 'dimension' as it is in euclidean/galillean/newtonian > physics. Of course, the upshot of this is that all the rulers and clocks we > use to measure space and time are 'distorted' and the measurements you get > are the same as what SR predicts you would measure. --Light: A History! http://21stcenturysciencetech.com
From: christian.bau on 17 Apr 2010 18:30 On Apr 15, 12:21 am, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > Once again, I don't believe that tommy1729 should be ridiculed > or called a "crank" for just stating his conjecture (unless one > is prepared to call Hardy and Littlewood "cranks" as well). I > had to reread Bau's post several times until I understood why > conjectures of this type are probably false. I wouldn't call him a crank for this conjecture, I would call him untalented and lazy. There is a huge difference between his conjecture and the Hardy- Littlewood conjecture: It is quite easy to find patterns of potential primes that are dense enough to contradict tommy's "conjecture". Five minutes with pen and paper finds patterns that are _almost_ dense enough. I am quite sure that the pattern I found with an hour or two of programming and one second CPU time could have been found by hand. tommy could have found it if he wasn't too lazy. And when you start to look for twin prime patterns in larger intervals, you quickly find patterns that have significantly more numbers than needed. The first pattern I found allowed for 24 twin primes, when only 22 are needed to falsify his "conjecture". To contradict the Hardy-Littlewood conjecture pi (x + y) <= pi (x) + pi (y), you would need to find a pattern for n primes in an interval [x, x + p (n) - 2] where p (n) is the n-th prime. And this turns out to be very, very difficult. If you spend a few days programming and a few days running your programs, you will likely arrive at a point where you are quite undecided whether such patterns exist or not, because the best patterns you find fall short of what you need, but just a little bit, just enough so you think that with a little luck you _might_ find a pattern. And patterns with enough primes to contradict Hardy-Littlewood have been found, but with incredible investment in programming. This was still wide open just a few years ago.
From: master1729 on 17 Apr 2010 14:49 > On Apr 15, 12:21 am, Transfer Principle > <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > > > Once again, I don't believe that tommy1729 should > be ridiculed > > or called a "crank" for just stating his conjecture > (unless one > > is prepared to call Hardy and Littlewood "cranks" > as well). I > > had to reread Bau's post several times until I > understood why > > conjectures of this type are probably false. > > I wouldn't call him a crank for this conjecture, I > would call him > untalented and lazy. > > There is a huge difference between his conjecture and > the Hardy- > Littlewood conjecture: It is quite easy to find > patterns of potential > primes that are dense enough to contradict tommy's > "conjecture". Five > minutes with pen and paper finds patterns that are > _almost_ dense > enough. I am quite sure that the pattern I found with > an hour or two > of programming and one second CPU time could have > been found by hand. > tommy could have found it if he wasn't too lazy. And > when you start to > look for twin prime patterns in larger intervals, you > quickly find > patterns that have significantly more numbers than > needed. The first > pattern I found allowed for 24 twin primes, when only > 22 are needed to > falsify his "conjecture". > > To contradict the Hardy-Littlewood conjecture pi (x + > y) <= pi (x) + > pi (y), you would need to find a pattern for n primes > in an interval > [x, x + p (n) - 2] where p (n) is the n-th prime. And > this turns out > to be very, very difficult. If you spend a few days > programming and a > few days running your programs, you will likely > arrive at a point > where you are quite undecided whether such patterns > exist or not, > because the best patterns you find fall short of what > you need, but > just a little bit, just enough so you think that with > a little luck > you _might_ find a pattern. And patterns with enough > primes to > contradict Hardy-Littlewood have been found, but with > incredible > investment in programming. This was still wide open > just a few years > ago. lol ! H-Li is still wide open today ! i didnt see " your disproof " in the media :p
From: Transfer Principle on 17 Apr 2010 23:37 On Apr 17, 3:49 pm, master1729 <tommy1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > lol ! H-Li is still wide open today ! > i didnt see " your disproof " in the media :p Technically speaking, tommy1729 is correct that H-Li is still an open conjecture, since it depends on the Prime Patterns Conjecture that is itself an open conjecture. So of course, what Bau really meant was that one has already found proofs of the following: PP -> ~H-Li PP -> ~tommy1729-Li and that the proof of the former was given just a few years ago, while the proof of the latter is, by comparison, trivial. Indeed, the proof that Bau wrote in the other thread is a proof of PP -> ~tommy1729-Li. To me, it's a bit counterintuitive that tommy1729-Li would be easier to disprove than H-Li, since "most" primes are not twin primes. But we see that nonetheless tommy1729-Li is far easier to disprove.
From: Transfer Principle on 17 Apr 2010 23:57
On Apr 14, 5:10 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> writes: > > Both RF and TO -- the infinitesimal "cranks," have proposed > > such a theory. MR, another infinitesimalist, has also looked > > at something similar. But of course, the standard theorists > > refuse to consider such ideas at all. > Just go ahead and suggest an interesting theory that you > think approaches the ideas of Ross, Tony or Mitch. I don't promise > that it'll get a whole lot of attention -- most mathematicians are not > looking for unusual theories Most standard theorists aren't looking for theories at all -- since they already have a theory, namely ZFC. The only people who are looking for _unusual_ theories are those who object to the _usual_ theories for one reason or another. The reason that I post unusual theories is not necessarily so that the standard theorists would accept the _theories_, but so that they'll accept the _posters_ whose ideas are given in the theories. By "acceptance," I mean avoidance of words like "crank" and "troll" to describe them. What theories will standard theorists accept? We already know that they'll accept ZFC, of course. So it's reasonable to guess that standard theorists are more likely to accept theories that closely resemble ZFC than those that don't. Paucity of axioms, schemata, and primitives, as well as avoidance of "ad hoc" axioms, are some reasons given by Hughes and other standard theorists in the past as to why ZFC is a preferred theory. But here's the thing. If a theory is _not_ "ad hoc," then we should be able to prove powerful results from only a few axioms, but the proofs might be long -- and then the standard theorists will grow tired of reading the proofs, since why should they invest so much time in reading a proof in another theory when they themselves already have a theory, ZFC? Therein lies the dilemma. If I were to simply "ad hoc" assume the assumptions of RF, TO, MR as axioms, then the standard theorists criticize the theory for being "ad hoc." But if I were to post natural-sounding axioms that imply that their assumptions are true, then the proofs might be so long that the standard theorists lose interest. But of course, no one ever said that convincing the standard theorists to accept the ideas of RF, TO, MR, tommy1729 was going to be easy. |