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: spudnik on 5 May 2010 17:30 that was a lot Moore math. I've written to Dudley about one of the "proofs" in his book, in the Fermatistes Chapter; he replied quite cordially. anyway, it was obvious from his write-up, that he did not actually read the small "vanity press" book that the dood put out, but just jumped to the penintimate chapter & couldn't follow it ... but, neither could I, and I read the whole thing, and it's really a humorous book, and the guy was a student of Prandtl at Gottingen. (Dudley seemed to agree, that that was his own MO .-) anyway, the dood thought that he'd found the proof of Fermat; that is to say, his method. it was all, quite elementary, using Ore's _Numbertheory and Its History_, and only ommitted stuff that was supposedly in a monograph on trig series by Vinogradov (I usually lose the track, when ever "big Oh" come over .-) there was one other "proof" in _Cranks_, that seemed somewhat plausible, two. thus: hey; what about the Coriolis force !?! may be this just goes to show, that being (say) Hungarian and trying to learn English (as a second or Nth language), does not always turn one into a genius. whether or not von Neumann (e.g) tried to read Shakespeare, he did at least write his own books in English ... which takes time! of course, these two guys (Neinstein and MPC#) could be perfectly competent at some other things. > As you can see, it's important that I know more about the particular > title you own. The ISBN is either in the frontmatter or is printed on thus: you can get rid of phase-space ("spacetime") with "movies" (or flip-books), becuase it is totally useless in a non-mathematical-formalist sense, "visualization" e.g. -- death to the lightcones!... and, it gives you an extra spatial dimension to play with. as for the idea of using two quaternions for "in & out," I don't really see, why it'd help, since you can use the same quaternion coordination for both, unless there's some dimensional analysis that needs a pair of them. (see Lanczos' _Variational Mechanics_, Dover Publ., for his treatment of SR -- good luck .-) thus: the second root of one half is just the reciprocal of the second root of two -- often obfuscated as the second root of two, divided by two -- but the rest is indeed totally obscure or ridiculous. since Fermat made no mistakes, at all, including in withdrawing his assertion about the Fermat primes (letter to Frenicle), all -- as I've popsted in this item, plenty -- of the evidence suggests that the "miracle" was just a key to his ne'er-revealed method, and one of his very first proofs. (I wonder, if Gauss was attracted to the problem of constructbility, after reading of the primes.) thus: so, you applied Coriolis' Force to General Relativity, and **** happened? > read more » --Light: A History! http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com
From: master1729 on 5 May 2010 14:18 > master1729 <tommy1729(a)gmail.com> writes: > > > gerry wrote : > > > > > > > In article > > > > <1917611097.70096.1272983868647.JavaMail.root(a)gallium. > > > mathforum.org>, > > > master1729 <tommy1729(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > In article > > > > > > > > > <289405134.65207.1272915961309.JavaMail.root(a)gallium.m > > > > > athforum.org>, > > > > > master1729 <tommy1729(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > so , is it a blunder of dudley , > > > > > > > > > > As I said, if you really want to know, you > can > > > ask > > > > > him - politely. > > > > > If you don't ask him, I'll take that as > evidence > > > that > > > > > you don't > > > > > really want to know, you just like seeing > your > > > name > > > > > on sci.math. > > > > > > > > he probably wont respond. > > > > > > He probably will, if you don't come on sounding > like > > > you're > > > looking for a fight. > > > > > > > its like writing a letter to wiles , asking if > he > > > is sure his flt proof is > > > > valid. > > > > > > Like that. > > > > > > -- > > > Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for > > > email) > > > > he can blame the newspaper. > > > > that still would get me nowhere. > > > > and btw , how come nobody on sci.math knows about > charles n moore nor his > > proof ?? > > > > since your all so experienced mathematicians in the > math fields ... > > I doubt that many of us are experienced enough, if > this was during the Second > World War... > > But MathSciNet does show some results for Charles N. > Moore: > > MR0201863 (34 #1743) Moore, Charles N. Summable > series and convergence > factors. Dover Publications, Inc., New York 1966 > vi+105 pp. 40.00 > > MR0064892 (16,352a) Moore, Charles N. On > relationships between Nörlund means > for double series. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 5, (1954). > 957--963. (Reviewer: R. > G. Cooke) 40.0X > > MR0011273 (6,141v) Moore, Charles N. Obituary: Harris > Hancock, in memoriam. > Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 50, (1944). 812--815. 01.0X > > MR1501543 Moore, Charles N. On Gibbs's phenomenon for > the developments in > Bessel's functions. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 32 > (1930), no. 3, 409--416. 42C10 > (33C10) > > MR1501386 Moore, Charles N. On convergence factors in > multiple series. Trans. > Amer. Math. Soc. 29 (1927), no. 1, 227--238. 40G05 > > MR1501254 Moore, Charles N. Generalized limits in > general analysis. II. Trans. > Amer. Math. Soc. 25 (1923), no. 4, 459--468. 40D25 > (26A03 40G05) > > MR1501214 Moore, Charles N. Generalized limits in > general analysis. I. Trans. > Amer. Math. Soc. 24 (1922), no. 2, 79--88. 40A05 > (26A24 40A10) > > MR1501139 Moore, Charles N. On the summability of the > developments in Bessel's > functions. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 21 (1920), no. 2, > 107--156. 33C10 (40G05) > > MR1500937 Moore, Charles N. On convergence factors in > double series and the > double Fourier's series. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 14 > (1913), no. 1, 73--104. 42B05 > > MR1500886 Moore, Charles N. On the uniform > convergence of the developments in > Bessel functions. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 12 (1911), > no. 2, 181--206. 65D20 > > MR1500847 Moore, Charles N. The summability of the > developments in Bessel > functions, with applications. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. > 10 (1909), no. 4, > 391--435. 33C10 > > MR1502366 Moore, Charles N. Note on the roots of > Bessel functions. Ann. of > Math. (2) 9 (1908), no. 4, 156--162. > > MR1500483 Moore, Charles N. Errata: ``On the > introduction of convergence > factors into summable series and summable integrals'' > [Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. > 8 (1907), no. 2, 299--330; 1500786]. Trans. Amer. > Math. Soc. 8 (1907), no. 4, > 535--536. 40A05 (40A30 40F05) > > MR1500786 Moore, Charles N. On the introduction of > convergence factors into > summable series and summable integrals. Trans. Amer. > Math. Soc. 8 (1907), no. > 2, 299--330. 40A05 (40A30 40F05) > > I looked at a few of these, and it seems this Charles > N Moore was indeed at > University of Cincinnati. Of course there's nothing > here about twin primes, > so presumably his attempted proof was never > published. but i want to see it ... :( > -- > Robert Israel > israel(a)math.MyUniversitysInitials.ca > Department of Mathematics > http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel > University of British Columbia Vancouver, > BC, Canada tnx
From: spudnik on 5 May 2010 18:34 sounds like Moore just gave-up on it, if he actually presented it at a meeting. if you can show any significance of Brun's constant, then you ought to be able to prove it, just from the weird fact of the first two pairs, (3,5) and (5,7). (well, OK; 1/3 + 2/5 + 1/7 doesn't look very important ... although;) so, did you grok that paper on the k-tuples?
From: Gerry Myerson on 5 May 2010 19:50
In article <706072917.78973.1273097918907.JavaMail.root(a)gallium.mathforum.org>, master1729 <tommy1729(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I looked at a few of these, and it seems this Charles N Moore was > > indeed at University of Cincinnati. Of course there's nothing here > > about twin primes, so presumably his attempted proof was never > > published. > > but i want to see it ... No, you don't. If you did, you would have written to Underwood Dudley long ago. -- Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email) |