Prev: The Fermat primes are factors of the denominators of the Bernoulli numbers 2^(n+1)
Next: Exterior Power Problem
From: master1729 on 17 Dec 2009 07:19
> 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
>

but i am not allowed to publish.

big difference.
From: spudnik on 17 Dec 2009 19:19
are you dropping, or have you looked
at his avowedly nonstandard approach?

I can't even vouch for Smullyan's popular books,
althoughI did develop an alternative
to his method in the Sherlock Holmes one,
re chess.

--l'OEuvre!
http://wlym.com
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon.pdfchampioning
a past-proof of Goldbach,
based upon name-
From: spudnik on 17 Dec 2009 19:21
giveme just one reason,
why I should allow you to publish your ****.

--l'OEuvre!
http://wlym.com
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon.pdf
From: master1729 on 18 Dec 2009 21:24
> are you dropping, or have you looked
> at his avowedly nonstandard approach?

show me his proof !

>
> I can't even vouch for Smullyan's popular books,
> althoughI did develop an alternative
> to his method in the Sherlock Holmes one,
> re chess.
>
> --l'OEuvre!
> http://wlym.com
> http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Re
> lativistic_Moon.pdfchampioning
> a past-proof of Goldbach,
> based upon name-

regards

tommy1729
From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 20 Dec 2009 01:42
On Dec 17, 2:19 pm, master1729 <tommy1...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
>
> but i am not allowed to publish.
>
> big difference.
>

Post to sci.math. Maybe somebody will be kind enough to review wit.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: The Fermat primes are factors of the denominators of the Bernoulli numbers 2^(n+1)
Next: Exterior Power Problem