Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: 'CHAN FUNCTION " OF PRIME NUMBERS
Replies: 2   Last Post: Sep 4, 2012 11:10 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Inverse 18 Mathematics Posts: 175 Registered: 7/23/10
Re: 'CHAN FUNCTION " OF PRIME NUMBERS
Posted: Sep 4, 2012 11:10 AM

On September 4, 2012 9:30 AM, Vinoo Cameron MD wrote:
> This is a placement of the "zeta" function of Riemann but it is more precise mathematically. The second paper of this name is now in print at the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE and the author of the third research paper is Scheduled to sumbit a major paper on the mathematics of Primordial 1:3 constant in Mathematics at a Major international JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS RESEARCH in the next 4 months. The "Chan" coordinates may one day replace the C^2 of Einsteins theorem by the "Chan Constant curvature" of the Universe, example of numbers
>
>
>
> Half- line value of prime 19 =16
>
> Chan value of the Prime 19=2.33333333333
>
>
>
> half-line value of prime 6491 = 56
>
> Chan value of Prime 6491 = 9.3333333333
>
>
>
> Since this is a spiral configuration many numbers have the same "chan" coordinates.
>
>
>
> THE TWO MATHEMATICS papers are COPYRIGHTED TO DR HONG MA PHD, EDITOR OF AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE , NEW YORK . GOOD BYE FOR NOW

At least, be honest:

1. There is a HUGE difference between the American Journal of Science and the Journal of American Science. The first one is a serious one. No possible comparison with the second journal... You're not even able to properly write the name of the journal that accepted your paper. You don't believe me? Have a look at the Acknowledgements section. This is the "Journal of AMERICAN Science", not the "Journal of AMERICA Science".

2. I thought your first paper was a joke. This second one is even worse. It is totally empty! It only contains a list of your so-called discoveries. You don't explain it, and we must trust you? No way! Explain your methodology, how this is revolutionary. Less than that, you're nothing.