Le samedi 4 août 2012 15:22:29 UTC+2, Frederick Williams a écrit : > firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > > > > > > > > " 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.