Prev: The Fermat primes are factors of the denominators of the Bernoulli numbers 2^(n+1)
Next: Exterior Power Problem
From: fernando revilla on 16 Dec 2009 06:11
master 1729 wrote:

> i now have a proof of goldbach.

Please, let us know the proof.

Regards.
From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 16 Dec 2009 20:29
On Dec 16, 12:45 pm, master1729 <tommy1...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> i wrote :
>
>
>
> > > On Dec 15, 7:43 am, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."
> > > <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 14, 12:28 pm, master1729
> > > <tommy1...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > i now have a proof of goldbach.
>
> > > > > the tools used resemble that of my proof for
> > RH
> > > and infinite prime twins.
>
> > > > > some powerfull tools.
>
> > > > > regards
>
> > > > > tommy1729
>
> > > > I'll notify the media.
>
> > > It would be better to notify the 'men in white'
>
> > hah !
>
> > there are real mathematicians who claimed proof just
> > like me !!
>
> > are real mathematicians crazy and bad at math ?!?
>
> > i know you wont believe me , so i will give a single
> > example :
>
> > H.A. Pogorzelski was a mathematician who circulated a
> > proof of Goldbach's conjecture that is not accepted
> > among math circles. According to his claim in
> > Crelle's Journal, 292, 1977, 1â€"12, the proof
> > depends upon the "Consistency Hypothesis", the
> > "Extended Wittgenstein Thesis", and "Church's
> > Thesis", all of which, no doubt, contributed to its
> > dubious reputation among his peers. He published
> > several paperbacks on the "Transtheoretic Foundations
> > of Mathematics", one of which discussed the Goldbach
> > Conjecture in particular.
>
> > Though it may appear otherwise, he was, in fact, a
> > conventionally educated mathematician, receiving his
> > Ph.D. from CUNY in 1969 under the advisor Raymond
> > Smullyan. His dissertation was on "Goldbach Sentences
> > in Some Abstract Arithmetics Constructed from a
> > Generalization of Ordinary Recursive Arithmetic".
>
> > ---
>
> > note that it was NOT DISPROVED.
>
> i meant that Pogorzelski's proof was not disproved , in other words it has not been proven that his proof contains a mistake ... ( for all clarity )
>

At least Pogorzelski made his results public. You haven't. So, until
you present your results, who cares? How can we find a mistake in
something that we aren't allowed to see?

>
>
> > and i am talking about a REAL MATHEMATICIAN
> > PUBLISHING IN A REAL MATH MAGAZINE WITH PEER REVIEW ,
> > YET WAS DISCRIMINATED AND IGNORED BY THE COMMUNITY
> > !!!
>
> > or are you going to compare pogorzelski to James
> > Harris or musatov or some nut ?? plz ...
>
> > tommy1729
>
> tommy1729

From: Tonico on 16 Dec 2009 20:37
On Dec 16, 11:11 pm, fernando revilla <frej0...(a)ficus.pntic.mec.es>
wrote:
> master 1729 wrote:
> > i now have a proof of goldbach.
>
> Please, let us know the proof.
>
> Regards.


I highly suspect we'll be seeing Tommy/Amy's """proof""" as much as we
saw, several months ago, her/his articles on Dirichlet's L-series
about which he so much boasted.
So don't hold your breath...

Tonio
From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 17 Dec 2009 00:56
On Dec 16, 5:37 pm, Tonico <Tonic...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 11:11 pm, fernando revilla <frej0...(a)ficus.pntic.mec.es>
> wrote:
>
> > master 1729 wrote:
> > > i now have a proof of goldbach.
>
> > Please, let us know the proof.
>
> > Regards.
>
> I highly suspect we'll be seeing Tommy/Amy's """proof""" as much as we
> saw, several months ago, her/his articles on Dirichlet's L-series
> about which he so much boasted.
> So don't hold your breath...
>

Why do you need to see his proof? Isn't it enough that he says that he
has one? You should learn to trust people, you know.
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 17 Dec 2009 01:22
"Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1900(a)hotmail.com> writes:

> Why do you need to see his proof? Isn't it enough that he says that he
> has one? You should learn to trust people, you know.

I doubt the master's proof will involve anything remotely as exciting as

the "Consistency Hypothesis", the "Extended Wittgenstein Thesis", and
"Church's Thesis"

which are invoked, as we have now learned, in H.A. Pogorzelski's seminal
work. In light of this I don't see any reason for anyone to pay any
attention to tommy's proof. On the other hand, about Pogorzelski's use
of these impressively named hypotheses and theses it would be
interesting to learn more! (I am hopeful that "Church's Thesis" refers
to something out of the ordinary in this context.)

--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi)

"Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: The Fermat primes are factors of the denominators of the Bernoulli numbers 2^(n+1)
Next: Exterior Power Problem