Prime numbers and primality testing is a Restricted Group with 1120 members.
 Prime numbers and primality testing

 Restricted Group,
 1120 members
About the form of a solution to GC
Expand Messages
 Hi,
If a solution to GC was not couched in formal mathematics but was
let's say based on observation and a little arithmetic, easy to
understand and short; would that be acceptable for peer review as a
solution and ultimately publication.
I am aware that the defintion of "easy to understand" is (as all
definitions) relative; however please bare with me on that definition.
I understand that such a format may be acceptable for peer review
(especially if it were short and easy to understand), but not for
publication; however I would be concerned that if that were the case,
then someone could translate my work into formal mathematics and then
claim the solution as their own.
Or extract seminal ideas from the work and integrate it more formally
into their own presentation.
I am aware that expressing such misgivings may be interpreted by some
as paranoid.
I am also aware that any post which assumes a solution will be
considered with some disdain and condescension by many.
However the question is asked.
Chris
Chris  On Friday 04 March 2005 09:50, you wrote:
> Hi,
Why don't you go ahead and submit it? Supposing you actually have a valid
>
> If a solution to GC was not couched in formal mathematics but was
> let's say based on observation and a little arithmetic, easy to
> understand and short; would that be acceptable for peer review as a
> solution and ultimately publication.
proof of Goldbach's, I'm pretty sure any journal editor would go out of their
way to format your paper and have it published in his journal (instead of
someone else's).
> I am aware that the defintion of "easy to understand" is (as all
s/bare/bear/
> definitions) relative; however please bare with me on that definition.
> I understand that such a format may be acceptable for peer review
See above.
> (especially if it were short and easy to understand), but not for
> publication; however I would be concerned that if that were the case,
> then someone could translate my work into formal mathematics and then
> claim the solution as their own.
> Or extract seminal ideas from the work and integrate it more formally
It is. If you had posted it here someone would already have debunked it into
> into their own presentation.
>
> I am aware that expressing such misgivings may be interpreted by some
> as paranoid.
oblivion. But that's what your afraid of, right? When you try to submit your
pseudoproof to a journal and it gets rejected, you're going to tell yourself
that it was because you didn't `couch it in formal mathematics,' right?
Face it, YOU DON'T HAVE A VALID PROOF.
> I am also aware that any post which assumes a solution will be
That's expected. How can you be so pretentious as to think that you have a
> considered with some disdain and condescension by many.
proof that all math geniuses missed, using nothing but `a little arithmetic,
easy to understand and short'? The very idea is laughable.
Andrew Wiles remarked that he wanted to prove FLT ever since his childhood;
luckily he didn't insist on using highschoollevel mathematics only,
otherwise we'd be still waiting for a proof.
> However the question is asked.
And our time is wasted, again.
Décio
[Nontext portions of this message have been removed]  At 07:50 AM 3/4/2005, chrisdarroch wrote:
>Hi,
If it was a genuine proof, then yes. It would be monumental. The problem
>
>If a solution to GC was not couched in formal mathematics but was
>let's say based on observation and a little arithmetic, easy to
>understand and short; would that be acceptable for peer review as a
>solution and ultimately publication.
is, though, that it is very unlikely that there is such a proof.
>I am also aware that any post which assumes a solution will be
Well, there are many people who have thought that they have proven it, but
>considered with some disdain and condescension by many.
none of the proposed "proofs" have been valid.  chrisdarroch <chrisdarr2@...> wrote:
Hi,
If a solution to GC was not couched in formal mathematics but was
let's say based on observation and a little arithmetic, easy to
understand and short; would that be acceptable for peer review as a
solution and ultimately publication.
I am aware that the defintion of "easy to understand" is (as all
definitions) relative; however please bare with me on that definition.
I understand that such a format may be acceptable for peer review
(especially if it were short and easy to understand), but not for
publication; however I would be concerned that if that were the case,
then someone could translate my work into formal mathematics and then
claim the solution as their own.
Or extract seminal ideas from the work and integrate it more formally
into their own presentation.
I am aware that expressing such misgivings may be interpreted by some
as paranoid.
I am also aware that any post which assumes a solution will be
considered with some disdain and condescension by many.
However the question is asked.
Chris
Chris
Publish and be damned!
Bob

Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
[Nontext portions of this message have been removed]  On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, Bob Gilson wrote:
> If a solution to GC was not couched in formal mathematics but was
The disdain, at least on my part, is not for assuming a solution,
> let's say based on observation and a little arithmetic, easy to
> understand and short; would that be acceptable for peer review as a
> solution and ultimately publication.
> ...
> I am also aware that any post which assumes a solution will be
> considered with some disdain and condescension by many.
but for the foolish games those who think they have one often play.
I get tired of "I got the solution, where do I collect money",
"I have a solution, but it is secret", and of course the
insulting "I have a solution and it is simple" which implies
thousands of mathematicians over hundreds of years have missed
the simple. Insulting and unlikely.
To avoid some disdain do this: take the time and effort to read what
others have done so you can put your "proof" in context and in
the language of your audience. Then attempt to publish in a
reputible manner.
If too lazy to do that, then try this: write it up as neatly
as you can and post it publically with a note "I think this is a
proof of _______, do you see any problems with it?" Of course
if it is too outlandishly written "using the zspectral
reasoning only I understand we get..." or "adding my zeropoint
axioms we can prove all unproven theorem" you will get disdain.
Finally, always listen more than you speak. If most of the posts
on a list on any one subject are from you; it is time to stop talking
about it.
Chris.
Most nuts are incapable of taking correctionif no one can give you a
reasonable correction, then up you nut index by three. If you
alone have a right answer an the whole world misses the simple truth,
up your nut inex by 8 (10 is the max). For each incorrect
proof that you retracted appropriatelysubtract one from the nut
index.  Hello,
Chris speaks wisdom, take it from a former 8. Anyone can claim
proof. Someone who actually has proof does not need to make any
claims whatsoever, they simply have to ask others what is wrong with
it and they will take up the challenge of finding out. If it's truly
that short and clearly written, it will be digestible and
understandable to many members of this list. The list has an archive
and worldwide membership as witness. You may be a nut and you
simply don't know it yet. You can cure yourself of the condition by
learning as much as you can about your subject matter and about the
realities of the academic mathematical world into which you seek
acceptance. Make no claims, ask questions. Any proof, or any
mathematical idea for that matter, is worthless if it is unknown. If
it's incorrect, it's worthless. If you don't put it out there for
scrutiny, it's worthless whether it's correct or not. And
ultimately, it's not your call on whether it is valid proof or not,
it must pass the scrutiny of everyone else in the world, and you have
to start somewhere. Consider how long it will take you in isolation
to learn enough about math and logic to be able to critically attack
your own paper. Just a little effort along these lines sometimes
goes a long way toward prevention of selfembarrassment and
spontaneous nut index inflation.
But your safeguard is the presentation, make no claims, ask
questions, thank those who take the time to help you and learn from
them how to save them time on future endeavors. I guarantee it's
100% O.K., even admirable, to be wrong  UNLESS, you're wrong about
being right. So simply do not go there. If no one from this group
can find anything wrong with a posted proof, it will be a rarity
indeed, an event to remember in and of itself.
If you are a mathematician trapped in a nut body, you must and will
educate yourself as the means to escape, otherwise you'll remain a
nut. How do you educate yourself?  Well start asking questions
about what you see in numbers. Until you start asking questions and
seeking out answers, you shall remain trapped, and there ye' shall be.
Dick Boland
> Most nuts are incapable of taking correctionif no one can give
you a
> reasonable correction, then up you nut index by three. If you
truth,
> alone have a right answer an the whole world misses the simple
> up your nut inex by 8 (10 is the max). For each incorrect
> proof that you retracted appropriatelysubtract one from the nut
> index.  Chris Caldwell <caldwell@...> wrote:
On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, Bob Gilson wrote:
> If a solution to GC was not couched in formal mathematics but was
> let's say based on observation and a little arithmetic, easy to
> understand and short; would that be acceptable for peer review as a
> solution and ultimately publication.
> ...
> I am also aware that any post which assumes a solution will be
> considered with some disdain and condescension by many.
The disdain, at least on my part, is not for assuming a solution,
but for the foolish games those who think they have one often play.
I get tired of "I got the solution, where do I collect money",
"I have a solution, but it is secret", and of course the
insulting "I have a solution and it is simple" which implies
thousands of mathematicians over hundreds of years have missed
the simple. Insulting and unlikely.
To avoid some disdain do this: take the time and effort to read what
others have done so you can put your "proof" in context and in
the language of your audience. Then attempt to publish in a
reputible manner.
If too lazy to do that, then try this: write it up as neatly
as you can and post it publically with a note "I think this is a
proof of _______, do you see any problems with it?" Of course
if it is too outlandishly written "using the zspectral
reasoning only I understand we get..." or "adding my zeropoint
axioms we can prove all unproven theorem" you will get disdain.
Finally, always listen more than you speak. If most of the posts
on a list on any one subject are from you; it is time to stop talking
about it.
Chris.
Most nuts are incapable of taking correctionif no one can give you a
reasonable correction, then up you nut index by three. If you
alone have a right answer an the whole world misses the simple truth,
up your nut inex by 8 (10 is the max). For each incorrect
proof that you retracted appropriatelysubtract one from the nut
index.
Hey Chris
I was merely replying to what chrisdarroch wrote, and commented "Publish and be damned"
So please do not attribute to me that which I did not say.
Many thanks
Bob Gilson
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Nontext portions of this message have been removed]  richard042@... wrote:
Hello,
Chris speaks wisdom, take it from a former 8. Anyone can claim
proof. Someone who actually has proof does not need to make any
claims whatsoever, they simply have to ask others what is wrong with
it and they will take up the challenge of finding out. If it's truly
that short and clearly written, it will be digestible and
understandable to many members of this list. The list has an archive
and worldwide membership as witness. You may be a nut and you
simply don't know it yet. You can cure yourself of the condition by
learning as much as you can about your subject matter and about the
realities of the academic mathematical world into which you seek
acceptance. Make no claims, ask questions. Any proof, or any
mathematical idea for that matter, is worthless if it is unknown. If
it's incorrect, it's worthless. If you don't put it out there for
scrutiny, it's worthless whether it's correct or not. And
ultimately, it's not your call on whether it is valid proof or not,
it must pass the scrutiny of everyone else in the world, and you have
to start somewhere. Consider how long it will take you in isolation
to learn enough about math and logic to be able to critically attack
your own paper. Just a little effort along these lines sometimes
goes a long way toward prevention of selfembarrassment and
spontaneous nut index inflation.
But your safeguard is the presentation, make no claims, ask
questions, thank those who take the time to help you and learn from
them how to save them time on future endeavors. I guarantee it's
100% O.K., even admirable, to be wrong  UNLESS, you're wrong about
being right. So simply do not go there. If no one from this group
can find anything wrong with a posted proof, it will be a rarity
indeed, an event to remember in and of itself.
If you are a mathematician trapped in a nut body, you must and will
educate yourself as the means to escape, otherwise you'll remain a
nut. How do you educate yourself?  Well start asking questions
about what you see in numbers. Until you start asking questions and
seeking out answers, you shall remain trapped, and there ye' shall be.
Dick Boland
> Most nuts are incapable of taking correctionif no one can give
you a
> reasonable correction, then up you nut index by three. If you
truth,
> alone have a right answer an the whole world misses the simple
> up your nut inex by 8 (10 is the max). For each incorrect
Dear Richard
> proof that you retracted appropriatelysubtract one from the nut
> index.
Perhaps you can persuade chrisdarroch to publish his "proof" so that Decio can have a field day. On the other hand...
Bob Gilson
Unsubscribe by an email to: primenumbersunsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
The Prime Pages : http://www.primepages.org/
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/primenumbers/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
primenumbersunsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
[Nontext portions of this message have been removed]  I'm humbly listening to the all the propos in this list for 6 months,
and I am proud to announce that I never solved the GC, even in my dreams.
Best regards to all
Jacques Tramu
 Original Message 
From: "Bob Gilson" <bobgillson@...>
To: <primenumbers@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: [PrimeNumbers] Re: About the form of a solution to GC
>
>
>
> richard042@... wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Chris speaks wisdom, take it from a former 8. Anyone can claim
> proof. Someone who actually has proof does not need to make any
> claims whatsoever, they simply have to ask others what is wrong with
> it and they will take up the challenge of finding out. If it's truly
> that short and clearly written, it will be digestible and
> understandable to many members of this list. The list has an archive
> and worldwide membership as witness. You may be a nut and you
> simply don't know it yet. You can cure yourself of the condition by
> learning as much as you can about your subject matter and about the
> realities of the academic mathematical world into which you seek
> acceptance. Make no claims, ask questions. Any proof, or any
> mathematical idea for that matter, is worthless if it is unknown. If
> it's incorrect, it's worthless. If you don't put it out there for
> scrutiny, it's worthless whether it's correct or not. And
> ultimately, it's not your call on whether it is valid proof or not,
> it must pass the scrutiny of everyone else in the world, and you have
> to start somewhere. Consider how long it will take you in isolation
> to learn enough about math and logic to be able to critically attack
> your own paper. Just a little effort along these lines sometimes
> goes a long way toward prevention of selfembarrassment and
> spontaneous nut index inflation.
>
> But your safeguard is the presentation, make no claims, ask
> questions, thank those who take the time to help you and learn from
> them how to save them time on future endeavors. I guarantee it's
> 100% O.K., even admirable, to be wrong  UNLESS, you're wrong about
> being right. So simply do not go there. If no one from this group
> can find anything wrong with a posted proof, it will be a rarity
> indeed, an event to remember in and of itself.
>
> If you are a mathematician trapped in a nut body, you must and will
> educate yourself as the means to escape, otherwise you'll remain a
> nut. How do you educate yourself?  Well start asking questions
> about what you see in numbers. Until you start asking questions and
> seeking out answers, you shall remain trapped, and there ye' shall be.
>
> Dick Boland
>
>> Most nuts are incapable of taking correctionif no one can give
> you a
>> reasonable correction, then up you nut index by three. If you
>> alone have a right answer an the whole world misses the simple
> truth,
>> up your nut inex by 8 (10 is the max). For each incorrect
>> proof that you retracted appropriatelysubtract one from the nut
>> index.
>
> Dear Richard
>
> Perhaps you can persuade chrisdarroch to publish his "proof" so that Decio
> can have a field day. On the other hand...
>
> Bob Gilson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Unsubscribe by an email to: primenumbersunsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> The Prime Pages : http://www.primepages.org/
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/primenumbers/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> primenumbersunsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>
> 
> Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
> Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
>
> [Nontext portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Unsubscribe by an email to: primenumbersunsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> The Prime Pages : http://www.primepages.org/
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  In a message dated 05/03/2005 20:32:34 GMT Standard Time,
jacques.tramu@... writes:
I'm humbly listening to the all the propos in this list for 6 months,
and I am proud to announce that I never solved the GC, even in my dreams.
Best regards to all
Jacques Tramu
Ah, ... but the flip side of that is that if you never dream it then you
assuredly won't ever do it.
Mike Oakes [who has spent more than 1 sleepless night recently dreaming of
proving the ERH]
[Nontext portions of this message have been removed]  On Saturday 05 March 2005 17:36, you wrote:
> Ah, ... but the flip side of that is that if you never dream it then you
Thing is, you're not a nut. You know your maths. If you announced that you had
> assuredly won't ever do it.
>
> Mike Oakes [who has spent more than 1 sleepless night recently dreaming
> of proving the ERH]
a proof of RH, I would start breaking out the champagne instead of attacking
you.
Décio
[Nontext portions of this message have been removed]
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.