proof of Goldbach conjecture
in [Math]
|
From: eestath on 2 Dec 2009 01:52 explain in simple term why it fails in that way 1.i can understand why i am wrong? 2.i can understand that you get it and you are right! All i ask is why? I WELLCOME ANYONE WHO CAN EXPLAIN TO TELL ME WHY!
From: eestath on 2 Dec 2009 02:04 This is *exactly the same* as saying: "If for every n>4, the two prime numbers p and q satisfy p=/=q, then for every m>4, if m is even then m is the sum of two prime numbers. " No it is not what i say : If p/=q then it does not exist k sutch that p+q/=2k! you fail to understand that is if NOT if and only if So what you are saying is simply wrong! p and q are prime number that are greater then 2! and correlate to n (there are all the possible solutions for witch p+q/=2k k>2!) how the hell did you become a professor! i am not polite if you are not polite!
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 2 Dec 2009 02:20 eestath <stathopoulosee(a)gmail.com> writes: > No it is not what i say : > > If p/=q then it does not exist k sutch that p+q/=2k! This assertion is equivalent to (*) If p and q are unequal then p + q = 2k for all k. which is possibly why some people appear to find your various arguments rather baffling. Now, it is possible you don't actually intend to assert (*), but if so, you're doing a poor job of explaining what it is you actually want to assert. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: eestath on 2 Dec 2009 05:28 the man is correct!
From: Tonico on 2 Dec 2009 05:36
On Dec 2, 8:52 am, eestath <stathopoulo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > explain in simple term why it fails > > in that way > 1.i can understand why i am wrong? > 2.i can understand that you get it and you are right! > > All i ask is why? > > I WELLCOME ANYONE WHO CAN EXPLAIN TO TELL ME WHY! You are being disingenuous on purpose: at least 5 people so far have already told you, in several fashions and from several points of view, that what you think is a proof of GC is just senseless babbling. You even dared to write me, with a rather nasty attitude, to my personal e- mail, I responded you, and you still have the nerve to ask for explanations? Either you don't want to abide by reason or else you can't; let us not forget that, after all, you are not a mathematician though the real problem is, in fact, that your mind suffers from an acute lack of logic. Last advice: stop the nonsense, begin studying some mathematics and give that poor mind of yours some chance to enjoy of some logical processes of its own. Tonio |