- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1

On Monday 07 July 2003 18:18, you wrote:

> --- Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho <decio@...>

> wrote:

>

> Decio didn't even watch the movie "Longitude". If he

> had, he'd know how silly his arguments were. Let me

> illustrate.

Well, of course I didn't. I think everyone on this list has come across a

Goldbach conjecture proof or a new formula for prime numbers at some time, so

they know how the drill goes. You're no different.

> > Quite simple, PUBLISH IT. That's how it's been done

> > for centuries. If your

> > work is as good as you claim, you're surely not

> > going the way of John

> > Harrison. Further, mathematics is unique in the

> > sense that, if you display

> > your formula, prove that it works and rigorously

> > bound its runtime

> > complexity, there can be no discussion, as it's been

> > _demonstrated_.

>

> Actually, John Harrison didn't publish his work. He

> took his work directly to a board of astronomers and

> demonstrated it for them. Then later, someone else

> published John Harrison's work. I'm looking for the

> opportunity to demonstrate as opposed to the

> opportunity to publish.

It appears that you don't, as witnessed by this previous post of yours:

>I'm not going to print my formula here for two reason:

>first, is security that someone doesn't snatch the

>credit away, and second, it's too complicated to print

>in an email message. However, I will go ahead and

>describe some details about the formula.

So I'm just assuming you want to keep it to yourself and still obtain funding

to do your work. Well, good luck.

> Also, the whole point of the movie was "how rigorously

> must proof be displayed." John Harrison rigorously

> displayed his work, complying with all the demands of

> the board of astronomers, and still, the board of

> astronomers kept saying that it wasn't enough.

Physics != mathematics.

As I said, publish your findings; if you demonstrate everything you claim,

there'll be no discussion as to your contribution.

> > Any modern C compiler today can handle 64-bit

> > numbers (e.g. long long in gcc

> > or __int64 in MSVC), which is 19-digit numbers. Of

> > course you could download,

> > say, gcc or PARI/GP and have access to numbers as

> > large as you please.

>

> As I have said, I don't have access to a modern C

> compiler, nor can I afford to purchase a computer that

> can handle a modern C compiler, let alone gcc or

> PARI/GP. I live just barely above the poverty line.

If you have an x86-compatible computer, 386 or up, you are eligible for

running gcc. I believe the same goes for PARI/GP.

> > No, you're trying to go against the way it's been

> > done for centuries:

> > PUBLISHING YOUR FINDINGS ON A PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL.

> > Think about it.

>

> Actually, Galileo, Copernicus, John Harrison,

> Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Isaac Newton and many

> others went against, "the way it's been done for

> centuries". Sometimes progress requires that we break

> with tradition.

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly: are you trying to say Einstein

didn't publish his findings? Look up “Über einen die Erzeugung und

Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt,” Annalen

der Physik (1905) (on the photoelectric effect); "Über die von der

molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden

Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen,” in Annalen der Physik (1905) (on

Brownian motion); "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper," in Annalen der Physik

(1905) (on special relativity); “Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem

Energieinhalt abhängig?” in Annalen der Physik (1905) (on the equation

E=mc^2); these are the classical 1905 Einstein papers, surely there are tens

if not hundreds of others. He published a few books too.

As for Stephen Hawking, there are 40 papers listed on arXiv.org. Obviously

these are papers published on a peer-reviewed journal, not books (of which he

published a lot of them too).

As for Galileo, Copernicus and Isaac Newton, there were no scientific

societies in their time, the idea of publishing was usually restricted to

sending letters to friends.

I won't even bother to comment on John Harrison.

Décio

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/Ce9Ace3VljctsGsRAgB8AJ44XgDOBgf9q2Wl0P05ekM0fpIVuwCdGr3A

xUi1VuHaRMTr6tDh9pnDj10=

=p21j

-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Actually, John Harrison didn't publish his work. He

...

> > took his work directly to a board of astronomers and

> > demonstrated it for them.

> >I'm not going to print my formula here for two reason:

Well, demonstrate how it works to us. We will be able to give an informed

> >first, is security that someone doesn't snatch the

> >credit away, and second, it's too complicated to print

opinion about it. No one will steal it from you. Your message will prove

that you came up with it by the date of the message.

> Actually, Galileo, Copernicus, John Harrison,

It is always a good idea to compare yourself to Galileo, Copernicus,

> > Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Isaac Newton and many

> > others went against, "the way it's been done for

etc. ;-) ;-)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]- Hi bejjinks,

First, it seems we are not receiving your replies. Please note that

on your replies you have to override the default value which replies

only to the individual and change it so it sends to the group.

Secondly, I would very much like to hear what you have to say. I

think that your theory can be explained even in text like this if you

define your symbols beforehand.

I agree with Jud, that if you are truly on to something, then your

idea will be creditted to you and to no one else since it is

preserved in the Yahoo archives, dated, for all to see.

I see this forum as a place we can help each other out. Some people

are great for idea origination, others are accomplished theoriticians

and can work out the theory and possible proof behind an idea, and

others are great at fleshing the theory out in clever computer

algorithms.

So I look forward to hearing more from you on this, if you wish. For

instance, do I correctly recall you saying something to the effect

that finding larger primes took *less* time than finding smaller

primes? I would like to hear more about that one! And also, can your

idea be used to demonstrate a numbers primality, or is it strictly

for prime generation?

Mark

--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "bejjinks" <bejjinks@y...> wrote:

> Recently I saw a movie from A&E called "Longitude". It is the

story

> of John Harrison.

>

> John Harrison invented the first clock that was accurate within a

> second and his clock was made completely of wood. The he invented

a

> clock that could maintain that accuracy despite any jarring that

may

> encounter. Then he used this clock to solve a problem that had

been

> baffling people for years, how to determine longitude at sea. It

> depended on his clocks being able to keep accurate time across long

> voyages despite severe weather and ocean swells.

>

> However, John Harrison was not an astronomer. Nor was he a

> navigator. He was a carpenter. So many discounted his work. They

> thought "How can this non astronomer figure out how to find

longitude

> at sea."

>

> It wasn't until John was in his eighties that people finally

> recognized that John had found the answer. I wonder if I will have

> to wait until I am in my eighties before anyone will recognize that

I

> have found the formula for all prime numbers.

>

> I find many paralels between my life and the life of John

Harrison.

> I'm not a mathemetician. You wonder how I can figure out primes

> without having the extensive mathematics background that you all

have.

>

> John was expected to build multiple clocks, test all of them, and

> journey multiple times to the West Indies to prove his theories

> despite the fact that John only had a carpenter's income to fund

all

> this work. You expect me to come up with a large prime number

> despite the fact that my ancient computer can't handle any numbers,

> let alone prime numbers, larger than 12 digits.

>

> Very well, if you insist, I'm working on a way to come up with

large

> prime numbers, despite my computers limitations, using my formula.

> It may take time and even when I do come up with the number, how do

I

> send it to you. Should I type out every digit in an e-mail?

>

> Please, watch the movie "Longitude". Then ask yourself if you are

> like those astronomers that stood in John Harrison's way and stood

in

> the way of science. - --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Underwood"

<mark.underwood@s...> wrote:>

replies

> Hi bejjinks,

>

> First, it seems we are not receiving your replies. Please note that

> on your replies you have to override the default value which

> only to the individual and change it so it sends to the group.

Actually, I am not replying to every email I recieve. Most of the

emails repeat the same basic messages and so I've sent more group

replies than individual replies. With the individual replies, I may

have accidentally sent them to the individual I haven't sent very

many individual replies.

> Secondly, I would very much like to hear what you have to say. I

you

> think that your theory can be explained even in text like this if

> define your symbols beforehand.

I've chosen one individual from this group and I've asked him to help

me clear up my terminology so that I can post it to this group in an

understandable manner. I should have that email ready soon.

> So I look forward to hearing more from you on this, if you wish.

For

> instance, do I correctly recall you saying something to the effect

your

> that finding larger primes took *less* time than finding smaller

> primes? I would like to hear more about that one! And also, can

> idea be used to demonstrate a numbers primality, or is it strictly

Yes, in a way, finding larger primes takes less time than finding

> for prime generation?

smaller primes. More accurately, it's not that it takes less time,

but that the number of primes produced is greater when working with

larger numbers. In other words, it takes approximately 5 seconds to

use my formula to calculate that 2 is a prime number. It also takes

approximately 5 seconds to calculate all the prime numbers between

30,000 and 500,000. In other words, it doesn't reduce the amount of

time for calculation, it increases the productivity of the process to

work in larger numbers. The only reason I haven't been working in

larger numbers is because at a certain point, the process becomes so

productive that my computer crashes from the sheer volume of numbers.

Although this process is mostly useful for generating prime numbers,

it does also offer some insight into the demonstration of numbers

primality that can lead to further understanding of the nature of

prime numbers. In particular, I know why all primes except 2 and 3

either equal a multiple of six minus one or a multiple of six plus

one. With a little help, I can prove that this is true of all primes

except 2 and 3 and I can prove that there are other "magic" numbers

besides 6.

p.s. not all the responses I've recieved have been so rude. A few

people, in this group and in other places, have been at least civil

if not impressed by what I've got.

Thank you for your questions. - Hello:

I don't know if I missunderstood what you wanted to say, but...

the fact that every prime is either in 6n+1 or 6n-1 is trivial, watching at the residues modulo 6: 6n,6n+2,6n+4 = 2·(3n),2·(3n+1),2·(3n+2) ; 6n+3 = 3·(2n+1) ... the residues 0,2,3,4 can't generate primes because they actually become in composite numbers. This only gives us the residues 1,5 to generate the primes (but of course they also bring a lot of composites).

I think you are computing something similar to the Erathostenes Sieve (as Dècio said), but I'll wait to see your base theory.

Good luck, Jose Brox----- Original Message -----

From: bejjinks

To: primenumbers@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 6:32 AM

Subject: [PrimeNumbers] Re: primes and John Harrison

--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Underwood"

<mark.underwood@s...> wrote:

>

> Hi bejjinks,

>

> First, it seems we are not receiving your replies. Please note that

> on your replies you have to override the default value which

replies

> only to the individual and change it so it sends to the group.

Actually, I am not replying to every email I recieve. Most of the

emails repeat the same basic messages and so I've sent more group

replies than individual replies. With the individual replies, I may

have accidentally sent them to the individual I haven't sent very

many individual replies.

> Secondly, I would very much like to hear what you have to say. I

> think that your theory can be explained even in text like this if

you

> define your symbols beforehand.

I've chosen one individual from this group and I've asked him to help

me clear up my terminology so that I can post it to this group in an

understandable manner. I should have that email ready soon.

> So I look forward to hearing more from you on this, if you wish.

For

> instance, do I correctly recall you saying something to the effect

> that finding larger primes took *less* time than finding smaller

> primes? I would like to hear more about that one! And also, can

your

> idea be used to demonstrate a numbers primality, or is it strictly

> for prime generation?

Yes, in a way, finding larger primes takes less time than finding

smaller primes. More accurately, it's not that it takes less time,

but that the number of primes produced is greater when working with

larger numbers. In other words, it takes approximately 5 seconds to

use my formula to calculate that 2 is a prime number. It also takes

approximately 5 seconds to calculate all the prime numbers between

30,000 and 500,000. In other words, it doesn't reduce the amount of

time for calculation, it increases the productivity of the process to

work in larger numbers. The only reason I haven't been working in

larger numbers is because at a certain point, the process becomes so

productive that my computer crashes from the sheer volume of numbers.

Although this process is mostly useful for generating prime numbers,

it does also offer some insight into the demonstration of numbers

primality that can lead to further understanding of the nature of

prime numbers. In particular, I know why all primes except 2 and 3

either equal a multiple of six minus one or a multiple of six plus

one. With a little help, I can prove that this is true of all primes

except 2 and 3 and I can prove that there are other "magic" numbers

besides 6.

p.s. not all the responses I've recieved have been so rude. A few

people, in this group and in other places, have been at least civil

if not impressed by what I've got.

Thank you for your questions.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

Unsubscribe by an email to: primenumbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

The Prime Pages : http://www.primepages.org/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]