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

Looking for more defintive advice!

Expand Messages
  • chrisdarroch
    I 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
    Message 1 of 4 , Mar 30, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I 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
    • Mark Underwood
      Hi 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
      Message 2 of 4 , Mar 30, 2005
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi 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:
        >
        > I 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
      • Adam
        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,
        Message 3 of 4 , Mar 31, 2005
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          "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
          > necessary assumptions, or increasing their accuracy, would that
          > improved version, dominate mine?
          <snip
        • jbrennen
          ... Yes, they potentially could claim the proof as their own if they publish it first. That is why if you actually do have a proof, it is imperative that you
          Message 4 of 4 , Mar 31, 2005
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, chrisdarroch wrote:
            > Could they publish before me? If so, would/could they claim the
            > proof?

            Yes, they potentially could claim the proof as their own if they
            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
            > necessary assumptions, or increasing their accuracy, would that
            > improved version, dominate mine?

            Your proof, if correct, would be recognized as the first. Their
            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.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.