On 25 juin, 18:48, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote: > In article <bf3323b9-6c3e-43e8-a01f-cee5b6c3e...@m10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, mluttgens <lutt...@gmail.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! > > Prove it. > > >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.
Could you give a reference?
If you looked at http://luttgens.monsite-orange.fr/page1/ you would find the formlula log(n) = 0.770535 log(N) - 0.564174, which represents a straight line relation. From that formula, one obtains log(n) = 4.8296 for log(N) = 7, and log(n) = 5.6 for log(N) = 8 Those results are close to the real observations.
The relation shows that no value of N can lead to n = 0. Hence, it vindicates Goldbach's conjecture.
> > >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. > >