Prev: Favorite JSH quote
Next: whether pi and e are exactly or approx 22/7 & 19/7 respectively #702 Correcting Math
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 23 Jul 2010 01:56


Transfer Principle wrote:
> On Jul 20, 9:28 am, Archimedes Plutonium
> <plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > David R Tribble wrote:
> > (snipped)
> > > > W-1 is not necessarily prime.
> > > > Consider 2 x 3 x 5 x 7 - 1 = 209 = 11 x 19.
> > > Yours is direct.
> > > Indirect, W-1 and W+1 are always necessary new primes, but do not feel
> > > bad because most
> > > mathematicians never got that correct either.
> > > That is why Twin Primes was never proved
> > So David still does not understand the Indirect Method and my answer
> > to him should have been more crisp and better explained. I should have
> > gone into more detail.
>
> I notice that both JSH and AP are working on the Infinitude
> of Twin Primes, but via different methods. JSH is looking at
> congruences mod various primes, while AP is attempting to
> modify Euclid's proof so that it works for Twin Primes.
>

Not modify; and let me say, to render the valid proof indirect. All
other
attempts of Indirect on Euclid Numbers were invalid proof arguments
because only when P-1 and P+1 are necessarily new prime numbers
is there a valid Euclid IP Indirect proof. So I am not modifying
anything, I am
rendering the first valid Euclid IP Indirect. And why would any
intelligent mathematician,
knowing that Regular Primes infinitude is a more general theory than
just the subset of
Twin Primes, why would any mathematician with his/her thinking cap on,
think that
the Euclid method cannot yield Twin Primes when it yields Regular
Primes.

So here, I can draft a proof that mathematicians are nincompoops if
they think that
infinitude of regular primes is yielded by Euclid's scheme but that
his scheme cannot
yield Twin Primes. This maybe the first proof that mathematicians are
nincompoops.


> Meanwhile, the following isn't directly related to Twin
> Primes, but I post it here anyway. In another thread, I
> pointed out that today, the 22nd of July, is known as Pi
> Approximation Day since pi is approximately 22/7.
>
> The question asked in another thread was, does AP believe
> that pi is _approximately_ 22/7, or _exactly_ 22/7?
>

Well, Lwalk, you know of course that in Elliptic geometry "pi" is a
variable
depending on the size of the circle drawn on the sphere of elliptic
geometry.
So that a huge circle that is the circumference, then the value of pi
is exactly 2
and not 3.14.... and the smaller you draw the circle on the sphere the
more that
pi converges to 3.14.... but never actually reaches it. So in Elliptic
geometry, there
is a circle whose "pi" value is exactly 22/7.

In Euclidean geometry the value of "pi" is a constant at 3.14159....
which is approx
by 22/7

In the Atom Totality, all of math comes from the Atom Universe, since
atoms are numerous
we have numbers and since atoms have shape and size we have geometry.
Because the
Universe is a Plutonium atom and not any of the other chemical
elements below plutonium,
means that the Atom Totality must explain why we have a value of
exactly 3.14159...... and the answer is that plutonium of all the
elements has exactly in uncollapsed wavefunction
of 3.14159.... for pi and 2.71...... for "e" in uncollapsed
wavefunction, but if you collapse the wavefunction, then pi is exactly
22subshells/7 shells of which only 19 occupied subshells /7 shells. A
theory of physics that explains the entire Universe, must explain why
pi and e values are what they are. Atom Totality explains it by the
number of subshells and shells.

The Big Bang theory is deaf dumb and silent when it comes to questions
like this.


> (If the former, then maybe he considers today to be Pi
> _Exactness_ Day...)


So there is a 19/7 day also as 19 July as the approximation of "e"
day.

But here is a nice holiday for mathematics. I keep talking about the
number 10^500 as
the Planck Unit for the boundary between finite number and infinite
number. And it is also
the number of Coulomb Interactions boundary between having a
StrongNuclear force in
existence or nonexistence. At about element 98 or 99 or 100 we no
longer have a StrongNuclear force because of spontaneous fissioning
and a halflife in nanoseconds or less.
This occurs when the nucleons reach about 250 or 251 or 253 total
neutrons with protons.

So we cannot have a calendar date of 10^500 but we can have a calendar
date of math
celebration for 250! and what day of the year is 250?

This brings up an interesting question Lwalk, and I remember some
poster a few years back who posted a formula that tells when the
factorial is larger than the exponent, something around 26! is greater
than 10^26.

Here I am asking you a question Lwalk. Where is the factorial 1/2 the
value of the exponent?
Is it 249! equal to about 10^498 I think that 10^500 is closer to
252!

So that my choice of the Planck Unit of largest number as where the
StrongNuclear Force
no longer exists, has a side twist fascination. Why should the number
where the StrongNuclear Force ceases to exist, why should the
factorial be exactly 1/2 the value of
the exponent. This suggests that a mathematical law or rule underlines
the StrongNuclear
Force. And that we should thence inspect the Coulomb force as to
whether a rule of relationship of the factorial with the exponent
exists for Coulomb force.



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
From: Transfer Principle on 23 Jul 2010 23:00
On Jul 22, 10:56 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Transfer Principle wrote:
> > The question asked in another thread was, does AP believe
> > that pi is _approximately_ 22/7, or _exactly_ 22/7?
> Well, Lwalk, you know of course that in Elliptic geometry "pi" is a
> variable depending on the size of the circle drawn on the sphere of
> elliptic geometry.
> So that a huge circle that is the circumference, then the value of pi
> is exactly 2 and not 3.14.... and the smaller you draw the circle on
> the sphere the more that pi converges to 3.14.... but never actually
> reaches it. So in Elliptic geometry, there is a circle whose "pi"
> value is exactly 22/7.

I believe that in elliptic geometry, pi must be strictly less than
Euclidean pi. Since 22/7 exceeds pi, according to the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_22/7_exceeds_%CF%80

it must be in hyperbolic, not elliptic, geometry where pi can be 22/7.


> > (If the former, then maybe he considers today to be Pi
> > _Exactness_ Day...)
> So there is a 19/7 day also as 19 July as the approximation of "e"
> day.

Someone already thought about that, in 1997:

http://www.rebas.se/humor/piapprox.shtml

> Here I am asking you a question Lwalk. Where is the factorial 1/2 the
> value of the exponent?

Wolfram Alpha is your friend. I typed in the query:

solve 2x = log(x!) for x

and then clicked on "use the base 10 logarithm." Though Wolfram
returns the trivial value x = 0, there is a graph, and one can
roll the mouse over the non-trivial solution:

(268.087, 536.175)

Thus, we find that 268! is approximately 10^536.

> So we cannot have a calendar date of 10^500 but we can have a calendar
> date of math celebration for 250! and what day of the year is 250?

Wolfram Alpha is your friend. I typed in the query:

249 days after January 1

(since January 1 is itself the 1st day, so we add 249 days to the
first day to obtain the 250th day). The response is:

Tuesday, September 7, 2010.

If one wanted the 268th day instead (since 268 was the actual solution
to 2x = log(x!) above), then the answer would be September 25 instead.

These only work in common years. In leap years, the 250th and 268th
days are September 6 and 24 respectively.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Favorite JSH quote
Next: whether pi and e are exactly or approx 22/7 & 19/7 respectively #702 Correcting Math