prof. Charles N. Moore ?
in [Math]
|
Prev: How Can ZFC/PA do much of Math - it Can't Even Prove PA isConsistent (EASY PROOF)
Next: Twin-prime conjecture "proof" by Charles N. Moore, 1944
From: Bill Dubuque on 26 Jun 2010 13:19 Gerry Myerson <ge...(a)maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote: >Tonico <Tonic...(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. Coincidentally, I just stumbled upon a reference [1] to this purported proof that there are infinitely many twin primes. The article says "A solution was presented at the meeting of the American Mathematical Society in Wellesley, Mass., by Dr. Charles N. Moore, professor of mathematics, University of Cincinnati ... At the meeting Dr. Moore presented an involved but convincing paper giving his proof..." --Bill Dubuque [1] Prime-Pairs Problem of Euclid Is Solved The Science News-Letter, Vol. 46, No. 9 (Aug. 26, 1944), p. 142 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3921431
From: JSH on 26 Jun 2010 15:40 On May 3, 12:45 pm, master1729 <tommy1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Gerry Myerson wrote : > > > > > In article > > <a578e10d-30b9-4074-94cd-72fc8e8c1...(a)r11g2000yqa.goog > > legroups.com>, > > Tonico <Tonic...(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 (ge...(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for > > email) > > so , is it a blunder of dudley , There was someone. I remember reading about him online years ago when I first decided that twin primes were governed by a random process. I remember seeing several sources online talking about a mathematician who made that claim, who was pushed out of the mainstream for it. But recently I could find nothing. NOTHING. It's like he got wiped from the face of the earth, except maybe for that Dudley reference. The main reason for math people to block a random explanation for twin primes is money. There's a lot more funding with it being an "open" problem. > > 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 If an established mathematician presents positions well against the mainstream he can simply be derided. For people who do not need funding--I'm entirely self-funded and an NOT a mathematician--that is not a way to produce pressure. It happens in other fields. In astronomy, Dr. Halton Arp ended up fleeing the country to Germany, when he could no longer get telescope time here. It's a weakness of established researchers--their need for funding from the establishment. Private researchers do not have that weakness. > > tommy1729 > > " but it has to be true , because i am the world's top mathematician " JSH I never said that. James Harris
From: Cassidy Furlong on 26 Jun 2010 17:33 every thing is random, til you find a pattern in't; so, What? > I never said that. thus&so: how many of us'd ever understood a proof of the unfinity of the primes?... well, if not, we'll never get p-adic numbers, or AP-didactical ones, either. anyway, p-adics are cool, when subsumed in Galois theory (or vise-versa .-) thus&so: well, there's phi of me to one o'you; go figure! > outnumber the intelligent so, odds are that the first replier to a post is not even dot.dot --the duke of oil! Rationale. In addition to political, economic, and mechanical feasibility, one must consider the environmental consequences of choosing ethanol over gasoline. In par- ticular, the amount of air pollution released in the form of CO2 and other green house gases (GHGs) is a crucial point of interest. In order to model the difference in ethanol and gasoline emissions, it is necessary to calculate the final mass of GHGs (in the case where 10% of the gasoline energy supply has been replaced by ethanol) minus the ini- tial mass (before the 10% replacement was implemented). If the result is negative, the 10% ethanol scenario gives off fewer GHGs; if it is positive, it gives off more. Assumptions and calculations. Our model is based on the following assump- tions: 1. Itisassumedthatnearlyallofthegasolinerequiredfortheproductionofethanol is used in the farming and harvesting stage, while other energy sources (i.e., coal) http://www.maa.org/pubs/cmj47.pdf http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/chapter-8-the-permian-basin-gang/
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 26 Jun 2010 20:10 JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> writes: > On May 3, 12:45 pm, master1729 <tommy1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> tommy1729 >> >> " but it has to be true , because i am the world's top mathematician " JSH > > I never said that. But you *did* say this: "Is that possible? Could it be that easy? No way. [...] There must be a mistake. Right? "But I am the top mathematician in the world." -- James S. Harris Which is pretty close to what Tommy wrote. -- Jesse F. Hughes "Right now I'm above the margin of error. I do exist." -- Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, Sept. 2007
From: JSH on 27 Jun 2010 00:33
On Jun 26, 5:10 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > On May 3, 12:45 pm, master1729 <tommy1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> tommy1729 > > >> " but it has to be true , because i am the world's top mathematician " JSH > > > I never said that. > > But you *did* say this: > > "Is that possible? Could it be that easy? No way. [...] There must be > a mistake. Right? > > "But I am the top mathematician in the world." -- James S. Harris Might have been drunk. I don't remember saying that at all. I am NOT a mathematician. > Which is pretty close to what Tommy wrote. I'll give you that but I won't stand by any such idiot utterance, even if it came from me at some time in the past. It's just not true. I'm not even a mathematician. I have done drunk postings. At the time they seem hilarious. James Harris |