- View SourceI feel that I have a very short, robust and simple to understand proof

of GC.

The only reason that I have not released it, is that I have many

differing and sometimes wildly contradictory opinions on what to do

with my proposition (who does one listen to? As Chris Caldwell tells

me "audience is all important"); thus fears that I have expressed on

this site , still linger in my mind and I have to spend time and

further consider what my best options are. Additionally, I have found

that some messages that I have sent to this site, do not seem to have

gotten through and I would be very worried if this happened if I sent

in my proof to this forum.

I have found that help on my concerns has often, only been grudgingly

offered and often half hearted at best. This, I understand is due to

the "I have a proof" wear that people have developed and the "it is

simple and short" claim.

These claims were made honestly and not to brag (however wrong they

may be), they were necessary so that advice could be best estimated;

for example,I imagine that my concern on formality would be advised

differently for a twenty page proof compared to a two or even one page

proof.

The amount of time my proof had to remain in journal may differ

dramatically from the norm if it is simple and short (would it? I only

guess so).

I am sure I could imagine a whole batch of other ramifications for a

proof which has the qualities of simplicity and shortness compared to

one which hadn't.........but I would only be guessing!!!

My concern on precedence (would I be deemed to have proven it), still

worries me, as I truly believe that someone could summarise my

findings into a few short mathematical statements.

Could they publish before me? If so, would/could they claim the proof?

If someone took my proof and strengthened it, by say, reducing the

necessary assumptions, or increasing their accuracy, would that

improved version, dominate mine?

At the moment, I can see areas which could be improved, with more

analysis, but I am not drawn to do so, as the remit for proof has been

fulfilled already (as far as I am concerned).

The main difficulty is in the attitude of those, as I have said, who

are incredulous when someone makes such claims as I have. How can I be

taken seriously and get serious advice, from people who know what they

are talking about?

I have responded ( as much as I consider safe), with some "disguised"

mathematics; but this is, as much as I dare; as my proof is short, I

cannot release many more clues, as it were.

I am considering multi forum release; website release, sending to

certain private individuals and sending to journals.

To a certain extent, some of my financial concerns relative to GC have

been addressed (but not fully, nor explicitly (for example, how about

the Abel prize?), as people seem very reticent to talk about such

issues), thus I might feel inclined to relax on the crude attempts to

develop a wager (which I found as tortuous as you did; I am sure).

To answer some on the matter of a wager, I would be fully willing to

allow those that bet, to verify the proof. On trust, I would ask for

an answer within one week; as I am confident in the simplicity of the

solution and thus a very short verification time.

It should be noted that simple to understand (Mr Caldwell!?) does not

necessarily mean that it is simple to discover!

Chris Darroch - View SourceHi Chris

Here's my advice. Assemble your papers and type your proof out into a

file. Having it condensed all in one place in nice clean type can do

wonders for bringing some things to light, believe me. :) Then go

over it thoroughly to remove ambiquities. If it still is what you

think it is, send it to the list and cc at least three individuals on

the list and others at the same time. This should quell any fear that

your post will go into nevernever land if you only post to the list.

We'll be kind. Most of us are happy for anyone who has worked hard at

a problem and is high on a new discovery. And most of us are

sympathetic to the humbling experience of having a hoped discovery

evapourate in the light of scrutiny by peers, if such should happen.

So please understand that we do want you to succeed in this. If your

Goldbach proof is successful, I am positive that there will be ample

monetary compensation for your work, especially if it is known that

you are in dire need of it. No 'betting' is necessary. That would

certainly represent a lowering of the bar in the noble pursuit of

mathematics.

So put your work to electronic form. Type it up. If you find yourself

resisting this stage, perhaps there is something amiss about the

proof and your subconscious doesn't want to face it when it is all

there cleanly in front of you.?

But we truly hope you have something to knock our socks off.

Mark

--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "chrisdarroch" <chrisdarr2@h...>

wrote:>

proof

> I feel that I have a very short, robust and simple to understand

> of GC.

tells

>

> The only reason that I have not released it, is that I have many

> differing and sometimes wildly contradictory opinions on what to do

> with my proposition (who does one listen to? As Chris Caldwell

> me "audience is all important"); thus fears that I have expressed

on

> this site , still linger in my mind and I have to spend time and

found

> further consider what my best options are. Additionally, I have

> that some messages that I have sent to this site, do not seem to

have

> gotten through and I would be very worried if this happened if I

sent

> in my proof to this forum.

grudgingly

>

> I have found that help on my concerns has often, only been

> offered and often half hearted at best. This, I understand is due

to

> the "I have a proof" wear that people have developed and the "it is

estimated;

> simple and short" claim.

>

> These claims were made honestly and not to brag (however wrong they

> may be), they were necessary so that advice could be best

> for example,I imagine that my concern on formality would be advised

page

> differently for a twenty page proof compared to a two or even one

> proof.

only

>

> The amount of time my proof had to remain in journal may differ

> dramatically from the norm if it is simple and short (would it? I

> guess so).

a

>

> I am sure I could imagine a whole batch of other ramifications for

> proof which has the qualities of simplicity and shortness compared

to

> one which hadn't.........but I would only be guessing!!!

still

>

> My concern on precedence (would I be deemed to have proven it),

> worries me, as I truly believe that someone could summarise my

proof?

> findings into a few short mathematical statements.

>

> Could they publish before me? If so, would/could they claim the

>

been

> If someone took my proof and strengthened it, by say, reducing the

> necessary assumptions, or increasing their accuracy, would that

> improved version, dominate mine?

>

> At the moment, I can see areas which could be improved, with more

> analysis, but I am not drawn to do so, as the remit for proof has

> fulfilled already (as far as I am concerned).

who

>

> The main difficulty is in the attitude of those, as I have said,

> are incredulous when someone makes such claims as I have. How can I

be

> taken seriously and get serious advice, from people who know what

they

> are talking about?

some "disguised"

>

> I have responded ( as much as I consider safe), with

> mathematics; but this is, as much as I dare; as my proof is short,

I

> cannot release many more clues, as it were.

have

>

> I am considering multi forum release; website release, sending to

> certain private individuals and sending to journals.

>

> To a certain extent, some of my financial concerns relative to GC

> been addressed (but not fully, nor explicitly (for example, how

about

> the Abel prize?), as people seem very reticent to talk about such

to

> issues), thus I might feel inclined to relax on the crude attempts

> develop a wager (which I found as tortuous as you did; I am sure).

to

>

> To answer some on the matter of a wager, I would be fully willing

> allow those that bet, to verify the proof. On trust, I would ask

for

> an answer within one week; as I am confident in the simplicity of

the

> solution and thus a very short verification time.

not

>

> It should be noted that simple to understand (Mr Caldwell!?) does

> necessarily mean that it is simple to discover!

>

> Chris Darroch - View Source"Increasing their accurcacy" is not something a mathematician is

going to be too generous about. You either have a proof of

something and it is correct, or, well, maybe someone else will prove

it. Logic, for a mathematician, is not a kinda-sorta-close thing,

it is a yes-or-no proposition.

For example:

All primes are one away from a power of two. Nope. 11=8+3=16-5.

This statement is false and if it was used to prove something, then

the proof is incorrect, and a non-proof: there is no kinda-sorta

correct.

All primes other than 2 are odd. Yup. This statement is true and

any proof that used this statment (and other true statements like

it) at a point in the argument would be accepted as a proof.

Adam

--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "chrisdarroch"

<chrisdarr2@h...> wrote:

snip>> If someone took my proof and strengthened it, by say, reducing the

<snip

> necessary assumptions, or increasing their accuracy, would that

> improved version, dominate mine?

- View Source--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, chrisdarroch wrote:
> Could they publish before me? If so, would/could they claim the

Yes, they potentially could claim the proof as their own if they

> proof?

publish it first. That is why if you actually do have a proof,

it is imperative that you publish it ASAP. One thing which is

clear to me and many of the other posters here is that posting

the proof here *is* an accepted method of publishing, and that

if you are the first person to post it here, you would be

recognized as the owner of the proof. If you have concerns

about the idea that you might send your proof off into some

Internet black hole, I suggest that you first send copies

privately to Chris Caldwell and Richard Guy (you can find their

email addresses easily enough); get their acknowledgement that

they received the proof, then post it publicly. Both Chris and

Richard would be above suspicion for trying to "steal" your

proof.

Don't expect Chris or Richard to provide a critical review of

your proof, at least not right away. They are busy people.

> If someone took my proof and strengthened it, by say, reducing the

Your proof, if correct, would be recognized as the first. Their

> necessary assumptions, or increasing their accuracy, would that

> improved version, dominate mine?

proof might be the one published in number theory books ten years

from now -- if it is simpler and easier to understand -- but you

would be recognized as the first person to have a proof, with all

of the prestige, fame, and fortune that go with that.

But, if your proof is not correct, it's hard to say what would

happen. If the flaw is non-trivial, it would probably be

considered that you did not in fact have a proof. If the flaw

is trivial -- perhaps you failed to account for a finite number

of exceptions which can be dealt with computationally -- then

you would be likely be recognized as having a valid proof. For

instance, if you could prove Goldbach's Conjecture for all even

N >= 10^20, that would probably be recognized as valid -- a

substantial distributed computation effort could cover all of

the N < 10^20. However, proving Goldbach for all even N >= 10^100

would not be considered a valid proof -- the proof could not be

"finished" by a computational effort. It would be a huge step

forward, but not a proof by anybody's reckoning.