The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

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

Topic: questions about a "proof" of the Goldbach Conjecture.
Replies: 4   Last Post: Nov 28, 2012 11:24 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 43
Registered: 11/26/12
questions about a "proof" of the Goldbach Conjecture.
Posted: Nov 26, 2012 12:15 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

I'm new to sci.math. I came here from by way of sci.logic
because google groups doesn't allow crossposting and several people include
c.a.p in their crossposted articles. In sci.logic the Goldbach Conjecture
came up with a lot of nonsense and it lead me to start thinking about it.
Since my math is pretty rusty I'm having a bit of trouble. I came up with
the assertion that there would be a prime p between n and 2n and others
identified this as Bertrand's Postulate. I'm using a slighly stronger
conjecture that says "all even numbers greater than 7 can be expressed
as the sum of two distinct primes." I'm asserting the problem is a
topology problem and proposed there would be a proof related to the
spacing of equadistant prime from all natural numbers n greater than 3.
Today I found
It's quite similar to what I proposed.
Since it's not an accepted proof I'm assuming there must be a flaw.
Is the flaw easy to spot and if so what is it?

Another corollary to my modified Goldbach Conjecture:

There is no natural number n such that for all primes p less than n
2n-p is not a prime.

If you question that read it again. Sure some 2n-p will not be prime
but not all of them or else n is prime and my stronger version is false
or the Goldbach Conjecture is false.

Except where n is a multiple of some prime p, 2n-p must be prime or
a multiple of some prime other than p,
appears to be a poof that's a bit weaker than what's stated as a
proof at
I find references to Chen's theorem on the web but I don't see the
actual proof of it on the web. How complex is it?

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.