2014.04.28 I have solved the twin prime conjecture.
- Thread starter RD-BH
- Start date
Perfection
The Great Head.
If he is it's a terrible abuse of notation. Using symbols in a way counter to normal mathematical convention renders ones work illegible.
AdamCrock
Polish Pirate
hahaha..... oh allright , just kidding
Perfection
The Great Head.
You're silly. ;-)
eduhum
Aahh the gold old days...
Cool math there. I hope you succeed in your endeavors, really.
In reality, everyone in this thread thought '*RESPECT*' when they looked at that , but no one will admit it
In reality, everyone in this thread thought '*RESPECT*' when they looked at that , but no one will admit it
plarq
Crazy forever
I was too lazy to verify the first formula. Pass.
Fair enough, I'm a nobody ...
So I'm going to assume you aren't trolling, and at least believe you have a proof (perhaps even do).
But you'll have to understand my incredulity, this isn't a simple problem by any stretch whatsoever. And again I'll say nothing you've posted so far really convinces me you've done it. Admittedly it's not a problem I'm super familiar with, I haven't even worked much on graduate level number theory.
To convince some us try doing the following:
1) Explain how you're equation being valid would actually imply a solution to the twin prime conjecture. This is not clear, and has been made clear by any of your subsequent posts.
2) Define the meaning of your notation, as I said I'm not that familiar with advanced number theory. But certainly in elementary number theory and other math some of your notation seems nonstandard.
3) Explain something about what techniques you are using. All I've seen are divisibility (and perhaps counting?) arguments. I really don't see the twin primes conjecture being solved by divisibility arguments alone.
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
Aside from the sigma' function (It's not being used to represent differentiation of the sigma function here), it's not all that unconventional. He's explained most of the notation confusion in other posts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisor_function, see sigma0(x), pi(x) is a prime counting function
There's still at least one divergence in the first equation (and lack of proof of the twin prime conjecture in question).
I somehow managed to convince myself that i raised to a rational power is always a meaningful expression (particularly that it's a 'single-valued function') .
If you really do have a proof of this, post it. Don't just post definitions of functions and other mathematical facts that are somehow related to the twin prime conjecture, without actually presenting a proof. Then maybe somebody who knows a significant amount about pure math (there are a few on this forum; I'm certainly not one) will be able to evaluate it, and maybe help you with the problems in notation that Perfection noted.
Also, you need to reply to uppi's post, in which he finds a possible flaw in what you have posted.
To be frank, what you've posted so far rings a few alarms that will cause people to think you're a "crank". Posting old standardized test scores saying you tested at the 99th percentile in math in some test does not help your case: most people who would score at the 99th percentile in a high school standardized test are still unable to come up with new mathematical research. It comes across as saying that, since you're pretty good at math, your proof must be right, which is obviously not true. Posting non-standard mathematical notation and not giving us your full proof rings more alarms.
One other problem comes up when you say that you have been trying to get people to look at your proof since 2006, and have been ignored because of a lack of funding and official credentials. This isn't a huge barrier in math: you can post this on a number of free sites, such as arXiv, which while not peer-reviewed still lets your work get out into the mathematical community while not allowing anybody to steal your idea and post it as their own. You need to do this if you haven't already. If arXiv doesn't take it, at least post it on forums frequented by real mathematicians, not gaming forums. They'll be able to give you better analysis than we can.
On a related note, the wiki article on this conjecture is interesting. It appears that some recent work really is zeroing in on a real proof. There may be a rigorous proof before too long.
Also, you need to reply to uppi's post, in which he finds a possible flaw in what you have posted.
To be frank, what you've posted so far rings a few alarms that will cause people to think you're a "crank". Posting old standardized test scores saying you tested at the 99th percentile in math in some test does not help your case: most people who would score at the 99th percentile in a high school standardized test are still unable to come up with new mathematical research. It comes across as saying that, since you're pretty good at math, your proof must be right, which is obviously not true. Posting non-standard mathematical notation and not giving us your full proof rings more alarms.
One other problem comes up when you say that you have been trying to get people to look at your proof since 2006, and have been ignored because of a lack of funding and official credentials. This isn't a huge barrier in math: you can post this on a number of free sites, such as arXiv, which while not peer-reviewed still lets your work get out into the mathematical community while not allowing anybody to steal your idea and post it as their own. You need to do this if you haven't already. If arXiv doesn't take it, at least post it on forums frequented by real mathematicians, not gaming forums. They'll be able to give you better analysis than we can.
On a related note, the wiki article on this conjecture is interesting. It appears that some recent work really is zeroing in on a real proof. There may be a rigorous proof before too long.
RD-BH
Human
i^(4I) = 1
i^(4(x/n)) = 1 when n is a divisor of x
|1+1| = 2
2/2 = 1
Twin Pairs = 6x+-1
Odd times Odd = Odd
Odd +- Even = Odd
All the odd terms are indivisible by P[].
P = 2 because P[0]/2 = 1 the numerator becomes Odd, r+-1 ... indivisible
P = 3 because r+-1 ... indivisible
P >=5 because r+-4,+-2 ... indivisible
Therefore the sum is 0, and it is why this formula lies at the center of the proof.
Example:
2*3*5((2I +- 1)/2)+-3+-1=
I=0 ... (2I+1)11,13,17,19,(2I-1)-11,-13,-17,-19 ... not divisible by 2,3, or 5
I=1 ... (2I+1)49,47,43,41,(2I-1)11,13,17,19 ... not divisible by 2,3, or 5
RD-BH
Human
I have a promise of peer review in May, with the promise of standardizing the formula, if they find no errors (they've asked for a complete presentation of concept).
I wanted to get the formula at the heart of the proof online somewhere/anywhere.
Replied ... still wondering what uppi is seeing.
I agree, but in a pissing contest it is still the only water I have.
I would point out that 1 + 1 = 2 at 1%ile .. 99%ile and some of the most intelligent people I know do horrible on tests.
arXiv requires endorsement and/or a professional affiliation, others have asked for thousands to publish or even review. Some look down their nose and call me an idiot without even looking at the proof.
Still, peer review is finally coming 8)
[note] Clever or stupid, either way, I will be published or know to never publish, and that review is all I've been asking.
Cool no matter who publishes first 8)
^I do hope your work is as good as you want it to be. That said: there is no reason to view the review (when it comes) as the end of the world if it is negative (don't know what it will be, i am not even a math graduate anyway). Many people who work on solving some math issues have at times sent works here and there and got little to no reply (or worse). It doesn't matter in the end, as long as you don't view it as something crucial as to how you view your own self.
Math is great, but regardless of a proof being good or not, we all know that many people in the math community tend to be jerks like people tend to be everywhere else too.
Math is great, but regardless of a proof being good or not, we all know that many people in the math community tend to be jerks like people tend to be everywhere else too.
If you want to pass any reasonable peer review, you need to seriously work on your argumentation style. My question was about what happens, when indivisibility occurs. The answer was probably this:
which you didn't give. Other than that, I see two more issues:
- Avoid the +/- notation. I have no idea what you mean by that. That notation has no place in a proof.
- your main argument is:
Why? You are claiming that Infinity+4 (or whatever you mean) is indivisible by 5. If that statement was obvious, we would have solved the twin prime problem long ago.
In any case, if you are worried that someone will steal the proof, posting these formulas will accomplish very little. Formulas are easily reformulated (especially when you use strange notation), so if anyone steals it he could (and as the notation needs work actually has to) reformulate the formulas in a way they're not recognizable. In a proof it is the argument that counts, not the formulas.
In that case, you could post on a non-standard site like viXra, which exists to publish papers that can't get into arXiv. It will be harder to get knowledgeable people to read it, but you could at least write your full proof out online in a way that will clearly mark the proof as yours, and then go around to various math-related forums asking for opinions. You should definitely consider using some sort of free pre-print site, especially if the peer review doesn't pan out (e.g. if it gets outright rejected without helpful comments). This way we could actually see your proof, which is necessary to make any real evaluation of your work, and you'll have timestamp evidence that the idea is yours in the event the same ideas mysteriously pop up in somebody else's paper later on.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
You should post a formal proof then, so that it can be criticized.
I haven't been following the thread though, maybe you've addressed the lack of a proof already.
edit: I have read back a bit and see that this is a bit of a mess. Sorry, I went through university doing lots of formal mathematical proofs, and they all adhered to certain.. standards. It's not meant to be personal, I'm just comparing this proof to those standards because I've been trained to.
RD-BH
Human
Example: x+-3+-1 represents the set (x+4),(x+2),(x-2),(x-4)
... the indivisibility is true for each element of the two twin pairs
The residue for all Primes >= 5 is +4,+2,-2, and -4, therefore any Prime >= 5, in the set of Primes, cannot divide the four elements of the two twin pairs.
The review is aware of my non-standard math. They implied they would help standardize it if they understand the concept.
Thank you, I will look into viXra.
After the review, if the proof holds, I should get assistance to edit the proof for publishing. If it doesn't hold, I am sorry to have wasted everyone's time, but I am not sorry to have received additional feedback.
Thank you.
Counterexample: n = 10, x = 14, I=1:
(3*5*7*11*13*17*19*23*29 - 2) / 43 = 75228991 -> divisible
I got in touch with a friend of mine who's a mathematician (PhD, specifically Algebraic Geometry and Number Theory, Arithmetic Dynamics, Diophantine Geometry). I asked him to take a look at the thread, here's what he had to say:
Mike Tepper said:
That is not true. As RD-BH has noted, without having an affiliation with an academic institution you need to have an endorsement of someone who has published a few papers in that field. This was introduced to reduce the amount of nonsense and crack-pot papers (although there are still enough of those leaking through). Even if his proof is correct, there is nothing to differentiate him from other people who also think their proof is correct. So nobody would endorse him without having reviewed the paper (and very few who can endorse have the time to do this).
There are scientific societies that give all their members the right to speak on their annual meeting. So if someone signs up for membership and wants to give a talk, they cannot refuse, only reschedule. That might also be a way to get a somewhat qualified audience.
That's why I suggested he put it on viXra. ViXra does of course contain mostly crackpot and nonsense papers, but it would be one way to put his idea somewhere where it can be read by anyone who wants to take the time, while establishing that the work is his. If he actually has a valid proof of the twin prime conjecture, it would be significant enough that any journal would take it regardless of where it was first pre-printed.
Similar threads
