PDA

View Full Version : Goldbach's Conjecture Proof: Send Me The Check...


02-24-2002, 08:22 PM
Okay, let's take the even number 12, and cut off the ends (0 and 12), because our "AND hole" (where two primes sit opposite) must be in the middle to produce two separate primes (measured to zero in two opposite directions) to sum:


h f f f h f

11 10 9 8 7 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

h h h f h f


The reason why there cannot be a frequency (a number divisible by a prime) in the top line opposite every prime in the bottom line is because, if there were, the bottom line would be a superior "key" into the top line. You cannot produce such a magic key out of nothing, just by folding it.


In other words, suppose we take this line in line, not stacked, put on a blindfold, and pick a "slot" at random. Our chances of hitting a hole (a prime) are one in six. So if we hit a hole, we will "know" we have landed in 1 of six possible spots with equal probability.


With this much information, we will not be able to say with certainty what the contents of the slot immediately to our right or left will be. If we have landed on 2, to our right will be a hole. If we have landed on 5, to our right will be a frequency.


To say that we cannot say where we are, and we cannot say what number will be 2 to our right, but if we fold the line, we can now know what will be above us from a sample of one, is not possible. We cannot know that much from one spot, there must be a probability of hitting a frequency.


Or, on the flip side, if we could "know" we would hit a frequency vertically, then we would not gain any additional information by sampling it, which is also not possible. For instance, if we take a random two-slot sample from bottom line, we can know we will always have a better idea of our location than if we took one.


Now, it is quite a different case if we use an odd-numbered line, because the even numbers are not as complex. We know, other than 2, evens are all frequencies. So of course we can use a hole as a key into the contents of an even number, but that does not change by folding the line.


Even in a flat line, we can always say if we hit a hole, there will be a frequency 3 to our right. So, we could say the same thing that, if we fold an odd line, we cannot use the bottom line as a key into one above and one to the left, and if we fold an even line, we cannot use our hole as a key into one above.


But that's Goldbach's other conjecture. That any odd number is a sum of two primes and 1, hence the 1-above-and-1-to-the-left offset. Keep in mind, when you fold it, you cannot knwo form how far away you are selecting, only whether that distance is odd or even. So it is a random number, known to be odd or even, to the right.


Anyway, you get the idea, in a flat line we know we cannot predict what will be a random even number to our right from a random sample of one. If we hit a hole - and we know exactly what the line sampled from looks like - we will know there is an exact probaility we have hit 5, and that there is an exact equal chance our random number will be 2 or 4, and an exact probability the number mapped to will be 7 or 9, and hence an exact uncertainty if it will be a hole or a frequency.


So by folding the line, we now cannot know what will be above. In other words, our knowledge of what number is a random even number to the right of any randomly selected hole, even if we know exactly what the line looks like, cannot change. So, inevitably, if we fold the line and examine what is above what, we must discover that some holes have holes above them!


So we can predict, with certainty, that our knowledge must not change. We can prove that if we fold it, and look at it again - just as we looked at it flat before we took our random sample - we will have learned nothing new.


Proved.


eLROY

02-24-2002, 08:57 PM
Suppose you find your self on a random, unknown spot on a number line, all you know is the length of the number line, that you are on a prime, and that you are on the first half.


Suppose the number line is 100 long. You cannot say with certainty that, if you pick a random even number between 50 and 100, you will not hit a prime.


Suppose you fold the line over, and examine it again. Again you must see that you cannot pick a random, even number, and be guaranteed to hit a prime.


You cannot examine it and find something different after folding it. Therefore, after folding it, you must examine it and see their are some primes opposite primes.


eLROY

02-24-2002, 10:14 PM
Elroy - I think you have a proof - a proof that you are over the edge. In grad school we would often get "proofs" from people pertaining to open questions. We got proofs of fermats the most often. As a joke we would post them up in the grad student office. I'm forwarding your proof because it is the most outrageous thing I have ever seen.


I have a serious question for you though. Do you really think that you are being mathematically rigorous? I mean have you ever seen the structure of a proof?

02-24-2002, 10:49 PM
I have seen unsuccessful attemps to prove the Goldbach's Conjesture problem before. Well, although the authors are getting nowhere, at least, it is worth telling them that the tools they are using is not even close to adequate. But this one, my goodness, we would laugh our tees off.

eLROY, do you know what number theory is? Do you know how to prove 1+1=2? And do you know the thesis of proving 1+1=2 is the closest work human being have ever done to come close to the whole Goldhach's Conjecture?

If you say, "what are you talking about", then you have no idea of what you are doing.

02-25-2002, 12:01 PM
So far as "proving" Goldbach's, I have - well I won't even say what it looks like.


All I will say is that it is three pages long, and I will not post it until I get the million dollars.


That having been said, I just finished typing it up, and I have yet to show it to any pros to see if it meets the rigors of "proof."


eLROY

02-25-2002, 12:07 PM
Paul, I have finished typing up my final, simple "proof" of Goldbach's Conjecture.


Of course, it seems pretty clear and straightforward to me, but I have never done a proof before, and I need someone to look at it.


You 1) are one of the best mathematicians I know of, 2) seem trustworthy and credible, and 3) don't seem to hate me, hard as I may try.


If you are not too busy, or you are curious, could you email an email address to


inexplicable@elvis.com


(you could set up an account there too), so that I can email a 3-page, large-type Word attachment of my proof to you?


Thanks either way!


eLROY

02-25-2002, 12:48 PM
elroy, rather than belittle your attempts at proof, i'm going to point you at some resources that might help you:


http://www.math.uncc.edu/~droyster/math3181/notes/hyprgeom/node1.html


in particular, the chapters on "logic and the axiomatic method" and "proof" should help you out.


further, http://www.flash.net/~mherk/goldbach.htm is a nice introduction to the problem, including some references to previous work and a bogus proof.


to help explain the hostility from mathematicians:

http://www.math.fau.edu/locke/Goldbach.htm


if you want to be a prize-winning amateur mathematician, perhaps you should start with some simpler stuff for which there are known answers, like the ramsey or central limit theorems.


the club

02-25-2002, 12:57 PM
My proof only introduces 1 axiom, I think.


Everything else can be traced to it directly, and the axiom itself is fairly self-explanatory.


It's just a lot of "if this then this" and every "this" is pretty cut-and-dry.


Thanks for the pages! Though if my current proof is flawed, I don't think a study in form will help me.


Basically, I...


Well, I won't say - who knows:)


eLROY