On 01/05/2013 20:08, 1treePetrifiedForestLane wrote:
> >> So, despite your earlier comments, you admit that >> your alleged formula for Brun's constant was bogus. > > I am tentatively callin the secondroot > of the sum of two and phi, Big Phi; maybe, > i'll be able to extend it to a little scheme, > phi, phi_big, phi_bigger, phi_biggest; > phinitessimals & phiinfinities?
No proof of any relevance to Brun's constant, but a plethora of still-born phi-based neologisms. It's all bullphit, isn't it?