Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

About the form of a solution to GC

Expand Messages
  • chrisdarroch
    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;
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 4, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      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      (especially if it were short and easy to understand), but not for
      publication; however I would be concerned that if that were the case,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
    • Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho
      ... Why don t you go ahead and submit it? Supposing you actually have a valid proof of Goldbach s, I m pretty sure any journal editor would go out of their way
      Message 2 of 11 , Mar 4, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On Friday 04 March 2005 09:50, you 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.

        Why don't you go ahead and submit it? Supposing you actually have a valid
        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
        > definitions) relative; however please bare with me on that definition.

        s/bare/bear/

        > 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.

        See above.

        > 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.

        It is. If you had posted it here someone would already have debunked it into
        oblivion. But that's what your afraid of, right? When you try to submit your
        pseudo-proof 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
        > considered with some disdain and condescension by many.

        That's expected. How can you be so pretentious as to think that you have a
        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 high-school-level mathematics only,
        otherwise we'd be still waiting for a proof.

        > However the question is asked.

        And our time is wasted, again.

        Décio


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Jud McCranie
        ... If it was a genuine proof, then yes. It would be monumental. The problem is, though, that it is very unlikely that there is such a proof. ... Well, there
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 4, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          At 07:50 AM 3/4/2005, chrisdarroch 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.

          If it was a genuine proof, then yes. It would be monumental. The problem
          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
          >considered with some disdain and condescension by many.

          Well, there are many people who have thought that they have proven it, but
          none of the proposed "proofs" have been valid.
        • Bob Gilson
          chrisdarroch wrote: Hi, If a solution to GC was not couched in formal mathematics but was let s say based on observation and a little
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 5, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            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

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Chris Caldwell
            ... 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
            Message 5 of 11 , Mar 5, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              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 z-spectral
              reasoning only I understand we get..." or "adding my zero-point
              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 correction--if 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 appropriately--subtract one from the nut
              index.
            • richard042@yahoo.com
              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
              Message 6 of 11 , Mar 5, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                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 world-wide 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 self-embarrassment 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 correction--if 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 appropriately--subtract one from the nut
                > index.
              • Bob Gilson
                Chris Caldwell wrote: ... The disdain, at least on my part, is not for assuming a solution, but for the foolish games those who think they
                Message 7 of 11 , Mar 5, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 z-spectral
                  reasoning only I understand we get..." or "adding my zero-point
                  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 correction--if 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 appropriately--subtract 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

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Bob Gilson
                  richard042@yahoo.com 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
                  Message 8 of 11 , Mar 5, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 world-wide 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 self-embarrassment 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 correction--if 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 appropriately--subtract 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: primenumbers-unsubscribe@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:
                    primenumbers-unsubscribe@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

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Jacques Tramu
                    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
                    Message 9 of 11 , Mar 5, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 world-wide 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 self-embarrassment 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 correction--if 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 appropriately--subtract 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: primenumbers-unsubscribe@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:
                      > primenumbers-unsubscribe@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
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Unsubscribe by an email to: primenumbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      > The Prime Pages : http://www.primepages.org/
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • mikeoakes2@aol.com
                      In a message dated 05/03/2005 20:32:34 GMT Standard Time, jacques.tramu@echolalie.com writes: I m humbly listening to the all the propos in this list for 6
                      Message 10 of 11 , Mar 5, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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]



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho
                        ... Thing is, you re not a nut. You know your maths. If you announced that you had a proof of RH, I would start breaking out the champagne instead of attacking
                        Message 11 of 11 , Mar 5, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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
                          > assuredly won't ever do it.
                          >
                          > -Mike Oakes [who has spent more than 1 sleepless night recently dreaming
                          > of proving the ERH]

                          Thing is, you're not a nut. You know your maths. If you announced that you had
                          a proof of RH, I would start breaking out the champagne instead of attacking
                          you.

                          Décio


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.