In about a day, I suspect...

In about a day, I suspect, this Goldbach's proof of mine will get ridiculous.


I mean, it is just growing on me how simple it is. The time to find a flaw is running short.


Already, it is just too familiar and plain. And the idea that nobody else could have thought of this is just - impossible.


That's basically it. On the one hand I can't find a flaw in my logic. But on the other hand, I just can't believe nobody else saw this!?


I will actually feel better when someone points out what is wrong, and what an arrogant fool I am.


eLROY

People can't point out what's wrong because what you have written is impossible for anyone to understand.


Prime holes, prime frequencies, your simplistic use of the term entropy -- there's no common ground for someone with a mathematical background to explain to you why you're wrong.


It would be like a 4 year old child tossing a ball into the air and challenging a NASA scientist to explain to him why the ball is not equivalent to the space shuttle even though to his mind they both go up and come down.


You basically seemed to have said, "start at 0 and count up. Start at your even number (N) and count down. Somewhere along the way, there are two prime numbers, at the same distance UP from 0, and down from N." You also seem to think that this line of reasoning escapes mathematicians because they're coming at the problem from too advanced an angle. You try to show this is true by studying patterns of primes and non-primes. (By the way, do you even know what a non-prime number is called? Quick: without doing a google search on "non-prime") Do you even know if 1 is prime or not?


Nobody resents you for writing this stuff, except maybe the moderators, but people are trying to tell you honestly (and sometimes humorously) that you have a 0% chance of even making an inroad into this well-studied problem.

elroy, the main problems with your proof are that you just show that it works for 12, there's no generality, and some of your statements are obviously true but lack proof themselves.


here's a much shorter proof than yours that's no less bogus, but "works" in the general case. we're going to use mathematical induction, which means that we show something to be true for some value of n, and then show that this implies truth for some new value of n. the implication n=>n+a means that you can iterate as long as you want and come up with a proof for any value of n. here, we take n to be the number of primes.


my basis step is that for any number a > 2, a can be expressed as a sum of n prime numbers, where n = a. that is, a = [x_0 + x_1 + ... + x_a-1] where all x_n = 1. 1 is prime, so the basis case holds.


now, we use the fact that this holds for n to show that it holds for n-1 primes. this is sufficient to show that it holds for 2 primes due to the induction principle.


using the successor function, replace the sum [x_a-2 + x_a-1] from the above equation with "2," which is also prime: a = [x_0 + x_1 + ... + x_a-2 + 2]. since any prime number p is the sum of 1 and another number (p-1), and since any number (p-1) is a sum of (p-1) instances of "1", we can always use the successor function to replace two numbers in the equation with a sum which is prime.


proven, with snake oil and hand-waving. if euler couldn't figure it out, then i probably can't either. can we go back to poker problems now?


the club