> > " I am also almost certain that GC is true, but its validity is not > proved. > In order to demonstrate that it is false, one could show that a sum of > two uneven but not prime numbers cannot be transformed into a sum of > primes by adding and subtracting some even number to/from its terms. > This doesn't seem to be possible, as the number of Goldbach's pairs > increases with the magnitude of the sum (cf. Goldbach Comet), because of an > underlying law. > It is highly improbable that such law would cease to have effect from > some particular number. Mathematical logic could even exclude it."
(1) "the number of Goldbach's pairs increases with the magnitude of the sum" needs proof.
(2) "It is highly improbable that..." Highly improbable (in this context, that's not a claim in probability theory, it is just a human expectation) things happen. Look at Skewes' and Graham's numbers.
(2) "Mathematical logic could even exclude it." Could?
Do you really see no difference between "The (scant) evidence I have seen suggests to me so-and-so" and "I have proved so-and-so"? This point has been put to you a number of times, so I suppose the answer is no, you don't. Bizarre.
-- The animated figures stand Adorning every public street And seem to breathe in stone, or Move their marble feet.