
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/goldbachconjecture/ http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/05/13/2245212/goldbachconjectureclosertosolved 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 soandso" and "I have proved soandso"? 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.

