prof. Charles N. Moore ?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Ariel Caticha / The Information Geometry of Space and Time
Next: when can we extend 2-forms in submanifold to 2-form on manifold.?
From: Ludovicus on 2 May 2010 12:29 On May 1, 11:11 pm, Gerry Myerson <ge...(a)maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote: > In article > <f37394a7-a005-4bdb-a0de-bc3716135...(a)o14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > > Ludovicus <luir...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Until the 1E+6 $ prize will be awarded I will not believe in proofs > > of Twin primes or Goldbach conjecture. My opinion is that they are > > impossible to demonstrate because they do not belongs to Arithmetic > > but to Probability. > > So you think it is impossible to demonstrate anything in probability? > > -- > Gerry Myerson (ge...(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
From: Tonico on 2 May 2010 13:06 On May 2, 6:39 am, Gerry Myerson <ge...(a)maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote: > Further to my previous post, there was an Amer Math Soc meeting > at Wellesley in 1944. There's an article about it athttp://projecteuclid.org/DPubS/Repository/1.0/Disseminate?view=body&i... > f_1&handle=euclid.bams/1183506292 > If that doesn't work, just type > american mathematical society meeting wellesley > into your favorite search engine, and it should come out near the top. > The article mentions a paper by C N Moore, Convergence factors > in general analysis, Abstract 50-9-221. Doesn't sound like twin > primes to me, but who knows? > > The abstract of Convergence factors in general analysis, II, is athttp://projecteuclid.org/DPubS/Repository/1.0/Disseminate?view=body&i... > f_1&handle=euclid.bams/1183507138 > and it has no reference to primes, twin or otherwise. > > OK, I found Abstract 50-9-221 athttp://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1944-50-09/S0002-9904-1944-08189-5/S... > -9904-1944-08189-5.pdf > No mention of primes. Dead end. > > -- > Gerry Myerson (ge...(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email) Thanx. For some reason the links you write down appear always cut. Tonio
From: Gerry Myerson on 2 May 2010 20:05 In article <4c4574a9-0d80-44bf-946c-9797518c1599(a)r11g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Tonico <Tonicopm(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 2, 6:39�am, Gerry Myerson <ge...(a)maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> > wrote: > > Further to my previous post, there was an Amer Math Soc meeting > > at Wellesley in 1944. There's an article about it > > athttp://projecteuclid.org/DPubS/Repository/1.0/Disseminate?view=body&i... > > f 1&handle=euclid.bams/1183506292 > > If that doesn't work, just type > > american mathematical society meeting wellesley > > into your favorite search engine, and it should come out near the top. > > The article mentions a paper by C N Moore, Convergence factors > > in general analysis, Abstract 50-9-221. Doesn't sound like twin > > primes to me, but who knows? > > > > The abstract of Convergence factors in general analysis, II, is > > athttp://projecteuclid.org/DPubS/Repository/1.0/Disseminate?view=body&i... > > f 1&handle=euclid.bams/1183507138 > > and it has no reference to primes, twin or otherwise. > > > > OK, I found Abstract 50-9-221 > > athttp://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1944-50-09/S0002-9904-1944-08189-5/S... > > -9904-1944-08189-5.pdf > > No mention of primes. Dead end. > > > > -- > > Gerry Myerson (ge...(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email) > > > Thanx. For some reason the links you write down appear always cut. Life is like that. But I'm sure you'll have no trouble reconstructing them, or finding another way to get there. E.g., anything in the Bulletin of the Amer Math Soc you can get to by navigating through the AMS website. -- Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
From: Ludovicus on 3 May 2010 13:27 On May 1, 11:11 pm, Gerry Myerson <ge...(a)maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote: > So you think it is impossible to demonstrate anything in probability? > Gerry Myerson The theorems deducted from Probability Theory, naturally, refer to probabilities. The arithmetic theorems refer to certainties. Some Arithmetic theorems are presented in some books as Probability theorems as Chevyshev's :"In any set on numbers ,the probability of occurrence of a number with a deviation from mean greater than k*sigma is less than 1 / k^2. ( sigma = Standard Deviation). The correct wording is: "In any set of numbers, the fraccion of those that have a deviation from mean, greater than k*sigma is always lesser than 1 / k^2. If you want to express that in probability language you must say: "If in a bag with a set of numbered balls you, randomly, extract a ball, the probability of geting a ball with a deviation larger than k*sigma is < 1/k^2." But, clearly, before you extract the ball, the proportion of the balls in the bag with numbers > mean + k*sigma, already was less than 1/k^2. Ludovicus
From: master1729 on 3 May 2010 11:45
Gerry Myerson wrote : > In article > <a578e10d-30b9-4074-94cd-72fc8e8c193a(a)r11g2000yqa.goog > legroups.com>, > Tonico <Tonicopm(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > About the book by Underwood Dudley: I don't have > it. > > The story is on pages 257-258 of that book. Dudley > has an undated > newspaper clipping reporting that Moore presented a > proof at an > Amer Math Soc meeting in Wellesley, Massachusetts. > Other evidence > indicates the clipping is from a midwestern newspaper > during the > Second World War. > > Maybe someone has tracked things down and told Dudley > more > details. I suppose anyone who really wanted to know > could ask Dudley. > > -- > Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for > email) so , is it a blunder of dudley , or was someone of the newspaper taking drugs ? i still say its a conspiracy ! :) those good mathematicians are just made-up persons , just like JSH told us. :p tommy1729 " but it has to be true , because i am the world's top mathematician " JSH |