Browse Groups

• ... After briefly looking at later parts, I guess misdefined. When defining lambda(n), they probably assume N is an already given constant (the number they
Message 1 of 4 , Mar 3, 2007
View Source
Phil Carmody wrote:
> --- "Werner D. Sand" <Theo.3.1415@...> wrote:
> > What do you think about the so-called proof of the Goldbach
> > Conjecture by Jinzhu and Zaizhu Han?
> > http://arxiv.org/ftp/math/papers/0701/0701235.pdf
>
> Well, they aren't loons as they are familiar with prior work in
> the area; but I can't help thinking that a unary function which
> is defined in terms of two unknowns is going to lead to problems:
>
> lambda(n) = { 0, if n==N mod p, p<=sqrt(N), (N,p)=1
> { 1, otherwise
>
> So, chose p such that (n,p)=1, and then set N=p^2+(n%p)
> Then p<=sqrt(N), and (N,p)=(n,p)=1
>
> So their lambda(n) is either trivially 0 everywhere, or misdefined.

After briefly looking at later parts, I guess misdefined.
When defining lambda(n), they probably assume N is an already given
constant (the number they want to write as sum of two primes), while
p can be any prime.
Under this assumption, if n < N and lambda(n) = 1, then N-n is prime.
I will not review the paper.

--
Jens Kruse Andersen
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
• Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
• Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer. We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.