- 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] - 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

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 appropriately--subtract 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: 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] - 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

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> - 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] - 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

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