## Re: Goldbach Proof

Expand Messages
• ... 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.