In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, mluttgens <email@example.com> writes: >On 22 juin, 13:05, Gus Gassmann <horand.gassm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 22, 7:40=A0am, mluttgens <lutt...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 22 juin, 03:19, Gus Gassmann <horand.gassm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > 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.
Because you don't have anything vaguely resembling a proof, all you have are the same observations that led to the conjecture being made.
>During those 270 years, nobody tried to correlate log N with log n.
Others have already pointed out that this is incorrect.
>If I had big computing power, I'd try numbers N =3D >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.
No it wouldn't. "Correlation" isn't enough for proof, now matter how far one carries the correlation.
-- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> Life's too important to take seriously.