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

Re: Goldbach Proof

Expand Messages
  • Jens Kruse Andersen
    ... After briefly looking at later parts, I guess misdefined. When defining lambda(n), they probably assume N is an already given constant (the number they
    Message 1 of 4 , Mar 3, 2007
      Phil Carmody wrote:
      > --- "Werner D. Sand" <Theo.3.1415@...> wrote:
      > > What do you think about the so-called proof of the Goldbach
      > > Conjecture by Jinzhu and Zaizhu Han?
      > > http://arxiv.org/ftp/math/papers/0701/0701235.pdf
      >
      > Well, they aren't loons as they are familiar with prior work in
      > the area; but I can't help thinking that a unary function which
      > is defined in terms of two unknowns is going to lead to problems:
      >
      > lambda(n) = { 0, if n==N mod p, p<=sqrt(N), (N,p)=1
      > { 1, otherwise
      >
      > So, chose p such that (n,p)=1, and then set N=p^2+(n%p)
      > Then p<=sqrt(N), and (N,p)=(n,p)=1
      >
      > So their lambda(n) is either trivially 0 everywhere, or misdefined.

      After briefly looking at later parts, I guess misdefined.
      When defining lambda(n), they probably assume N is an already given
      constant (the number they want to write as sum of two primes), while
      p can be any prime.
      Under this assumption, if n < N and lambda(n) = 1, then N-n is prime.
      I will not review the paper.

      --
      Jens Kruse Andersen
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.