Prev: For Porat: --> Re: Does a flat observable universe imply an infinite universe?
Next: California Postdocs Embrace Union Contract
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 13 Aug 2010 15:25


Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Even geniuses slip. If I had it to do over again, looking at Goldbach,
> I should first have wondered whether there are counterexamples in
> Infinite Integers such as p-adics or AP-adics. There most certainly
> are counterexamples.
>
> A few counterexamples are these:
> (a) ....191817161514131211109876543210
> (b) ....888833338883338833830
> (c) .....666666660

Correct me if wrong, but I think I can get away with saying that the
Infinite Integer of
.......66666666 which in AP-adics has frontview and backview as
66666.....666666 has
no Goldbach primes. It is obviously even. And we see how it becomes a
counterexample
of Goldbach because although 6 and then 66 and then 666 etc etc have
Goldbach prime
summands, that primes have to be "finite strings". Is the number
66666....66661 prime?
It is never decidable since the place-value can never be pinned down.
61 is prime but is
661 prime? Is 6661 prime? Sometimes it is prime other times it is
composite and so an
infinite string loses this decidability of whether it is prime or
composite. And then when
you state Conjectures like Goldbach, FLT, Riemann Hypothesis and state
them as for every such and such number, means you are asking if
Goldbach is true for Infinite Integers in addition to Finite integers.
So these conjectures are never proveable until a Definition of
finite number versus infinite number is WELL defined.


>
> And come to think of it, my Galois Algebra proof of Goldbach has
> restrictions as does all of Projective Geometry has restrictions. So I
> do learn something new in all of this. The Galois Algebra of Goldbach
> says that multiplication requires at least two prime factors for Even
> Naturals >4. If we thus interchange multiplication with addition,
> every Even Natural requires two prime Goldbach summands. But notice
> that all of Projective Geometry is finite geometry of objects of lines
> and points interchangeability. One theorem in projective geometry that
> talks of points and then interchanges them with lines is that of
> finite mathematics since points are finite and the lines are line
> segments. The study of Projective Geometry never made that clear, and
> only long after having taken the subject might someone, upon
> reflection, realize that the subject was finite geometry.
>
> So that the Galois Algebra proof of Goldbach is not a Goldbach to
> infinity but a finite Goldbach to 10^500 or less. Goldbach is true for
> N smaller than 1000 or 10,000, but Goldbach is not true for what "old
> math called infinity" Goldbach is not true for "out to infinity"
> unless we specify that 10^500 is the boundary of finite
> and infinite.
>

This raises an interesting issue or conjecture itself. Is there a
Galois Algebra
interchange between multiplication and addition, provided, so long as
we
have a Finite Algebra of say 10^500? So that Goldbach restricted to
10^500
is true by Galois Algebra Interchange?




> This is the same situation for Fermat's Last Theorem and for the
> Riemann Hypothesis.
>
> Now there is going to be alot of carping and complaining by dull
> people of mathematics, wondering that it appears as if 10^500 is too
> artificial, since it seems as though Goldbach works just as well out
> to 10^600 or 10^2,000 and that Fermat's Last Theorem or
> Riemann Hypothesis are good for that distance also.
>
> But the reason they are dullards, is because Physics is exhausted at
> 10^500 and especially its inverse of 10^-500.
>
> Has anyone really, ever noticed that in mathematics, there is a huge
> bias of theorems for the world at large, but seldom if ever a theorem
> of the world at the small scale? It is not because of a lack of
> interest in the microworld for mathematics, but more to do with our
> inability to think small. And mathematics and mathematicians never
> really payed attention to math at the small. Occasionally some math is
> of the microworld such as Poincare Conjecture and the reason PC has
> never been proven, well, because it too, like Goldbach, like Fermat's
> Last Theorem and like the
> Riemann Hypothesis, has run into the boundary between what is finite
> versus infinite.
>
> A long time back in this book which is approaching a thousand pages or
> more, I gave a proof that you cannot have absolute betweeness in
> geometry. That you cannot have a axiom that says between any two
> points on a line there is a new third point. Where does that
> breakdown? It breaks down at 10^-500. Poincare Conjecture is never
> provable because the axiom of betweeness stops at 10^-500.
>
> Another proof I gave was that if you have absolute betweeness, then
> you have triangles in Euclidean Geometry whose angle sum is larger
> than 180 degrees.
>
> The point I am making with 10^-500, is that people, dullards in math,
> look at Goldbach, FLT, RH and think, oh, why stop at 10^500 for those
> seem to work at 10^600. And the answer to the dullards, is that as you
> push beyond 10^500, you have to realize that you are pushing beyond
> 10^-500 in the microworld where you have triangles in that microworld
> with angle sums larger than 180 degrees.
>
> So I have been able to prove Infinitude of Twin Primes, the Polignac
> conjecture, the Infinitude of Mersenne primes, the Infinitude of
> Perfect Numbers, and a broad class of infinitude of primes proof,
> conventionally. I was able to do this because I saw a flaw in the
> history of mathematics with the inability to properly give a Euclid
> Indirect method Infinitude of Regular Primes. I also was able to prove
> that No Odd Perfect Number (except 1) exists by conventional means,
> where the proof is a template of how square root of 2 is irrational
> was proven.
>
> But as for Goldbach, FLT, and Riemann Hypothesis and the Poincare
> Conjecture, they are unprovable in their "old math format" because the
> old-math never defined what it means to be finite-number versus
> infinite-number.
>
> Let me also add, that the Kepler Packing Problem is also unproveable
> because of the silly ill-defined notion
> of infinite tiling when packing requires a distinction between finite
> number and infinite number. So that once KPP is embedded in 10^500, it
> is instantly proveable that the hexagonal closed packing is not the
> densest of packings but requires a mix of packings which includes the
> oblong packing at the container walls.
>
> In sum total, mathematics, from Ancient Greece times has built up alot
> of poor definitions and misconceptions which has led to conjectures
> that contain those poor-definitions and thus never proveable. And this
> book is all about cleaning up the messy house of mathematics.
>

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: For Porat: --> Re: Does a flat observable universe imply an infinite universe?
Next: California Postdocs Embrace Union Contract