Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to 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

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 comp.ai.philosophy 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 http://milesmathis.com/gold3.html
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 http://milesmathis.com/gold3.html
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 1994-2016. All Rights Reserved.