
Re: Vindication of Goldbach's conjecture
Posted:
Jun 28, 2012 12:35 PM


In article <cb73b0b0ab294d56b2d9b25030a3960f@j9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, mluttgens <luttgma@gmail.com> writes: >On 25 juin, 18:48, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote: >> In article <bf3323b96c3e43e8a01fcee5b6c3e...@m10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, mluttgens <lutt...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >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?
Gus Gassmann already posted a reference, in MessageID: <61d3626f9a6d427384021fbf90b36a21@y41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>.
You replied to his post in MessageID: <75f1b7d3ef7643668a97851e3606dac0@8g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>. You posted your reply on Fri, 22 Jun 2012 03:40:51 0700 (PDT). The link was still in what you posted.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture#Heuristic_justification>
>If you looked at http://luttgens.monsiteorange.fr/page1/ >you would find the formlula log(n) = 0.770535 log(N)  0.564174, which >represents a straight line relation.
If you look at the second graph at: <http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~richard/goldbach.html> you'll see that any relationship as simple as what you've put forth doesn't begin to describe the behavior.
 Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> Life's too important to take seriously.

