|
|
Re: Vindication of Goldbach's conjecture
Posted:
Jun 22, 2012 10:14 AM
|
|
On 22 juin, 13:05, Gus Gassmann <horand.gassm...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> On Jun 22, 7:40 am, mluttgens <lutt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 22 juin, 03:19, Gus Gassmann <horand.gassm...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 21, 7:29 pm, mluttgens <lutt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > For N = 1000000, one gets 10804 Goldbach's pairs.
> > > > The relation between log N and log n is log n = 0.727*log N -0.436
>
> > > Note that this is not an equation, as it is not satisfied for N = 4.
>
> > The linear relation has been calculated from N = 50 to N = 1000000.
> > Using it, one gets n = 8433 when N = 1000000, which is less than the
> > exact value 10804.
> > With the help of a graph, one could infer that another relationship,
> > probably exponential, would be more appropriate. This would of course
> > still clearer vindicate Goldbach's conjecture.
>
> You chose not to respond to my main substantive point, which was that
> vindication =/= proof. Evidence in favor of the conjecture is hardly
> news. After all, the original conjecture was based on at least some
> evidence, so you are approximately 270 years too late. And since n(N),
> the number of ways one can partition N into primes, is not monotonic*,
> you cannot rule out a situation where N > 2 and n(N) = 0.
>
> * n(8) = n(12) = 1, but n(10) = 2.
>
>
And n(38) = 3, but you cannot find an even number N such as n(N) = 0!
Why don't you react more positively instead of quibbling about the
meaning of proof.
During those 270 years, nobody tried to correlate log N with log n.
If I had big computing power, I'd try numbers N =
10^2, 10^3, etc... till for instance 10^15, and determine more
precisely the
curve linking the two logs.
If such curve confirms the positive correlation I found, it would not
only vindicate,
but also *prove* the validity of Goldbach's conjecture.
Marcel Luttgens
|
|
