Prev: A Feasible Optimal Solution to the P Versus NP Problem: l=7
Next: Skew-symmetric matrix A and I + A - Cayley transform
From: master1729 on 6 May 2010 14:38
gnasher wrote :

> On May 5, 11:42 pm, master1729 <tommy1...(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > consider the closed interval (a,b).
> >
> > we need to prove that the number of primes in that
> > interval cannot be larger than pi(b - a).
>
> Wrong. We don't need to prove this. We only need to
> prove that the
> number of primes in the left open, right closed
> interval (a, b] cannot
> be larger than pi (b - a). If a and b are both
> primes, and the number
> of primes in [a, b] is one larger than the pi (b -
> a), then the
> conjecture could still be true.
>
> I'll leave you to it until you fix this, then I'll
> look for your next
> mistake.

but that does not invalidate what i wrote.
From: christian.bau on 6 May 2010 20:12
On May 6, 11:38 pm, master1729 <tommy1...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> gnasher wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 11:42 pm, master1729 <tommy1...(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > consider the closed interval (a,b).
>
> > > we need to prove that the number of primes in that
> > > interval cannot be larger than pi(b - a).
>
> > Wrong. We don't need to prove this. We only need to
> > prove that the
> > number of primes in the left open, right closed
> > interval (a, b] cannot
> > be larger than pi (b - a). If a and b are both
> > primes, and the number
> > of primes in [a, b] is one larger than the pi (b -
> > a), then the
> > conjecture could still be true.
>
> > I'll leave you to it until you fix this, then I'll
> > look for your next
> > mistake.
>
> but that does not invalidate what i wrote.

But I stop reading any purported "proof" when I find the first
mistake. It's up to you whether you want to fix it.

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: A Feasible Optimal Solution to the P Versus NP Problem: l=7
Next: Skew-symmetric matrix A and I + A - Cayley transform