|
|
Re: Vindication of Goldbach's conjecture
Posted:
Aug 6, 2012 8:39 AM
|
|
Le samedi 4 août 2012 15:22:29 UTC+2, Frederick Williams a écrit :
> luttgma@gmail.com 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.
>
Let's look at some papers and dream:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach's_conjecture
http://terrytao.wordpress.com/tag/goldbach-conjecture/
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/05/13/2245212/goldbach-conjecture-closer-to-solved
http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/45/1104.0057v1Goldbach%20conjeture%20%E7%94%A8%E9%83%A8%E5%88%86%E7%B4%A0%E6%95%B0%E8%AF%81%E5%93%A5%E7%8C%9C.PDF
etc....
Marcel Luttgens
>
>
> (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.
|
|
