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

Re: [PrimeNumbers] Demichel

Expand Messages
  • Phil Carmody
    ... It gets worse. Looking at the start of Chapter 3, Numerical Results (i), we have the assertion: Now we know that (gonna simplify glyphs, sorry) e^(iwy)
    Message 1 of 8 , Jan 2, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Phil Carmody wrote:
      > --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Andrey Kulsha wrote:
      > > There are also two new (very similar, huh)
      > > papers analyzing and improving these results:
      > > http://eprints.ma.man.ac.uk/1541/01/Munibah2010.pdf
      >
      > "In 1914, numerical evidence proved that π(x) < li(x)
      > for all x. "
      >
      > Ewww...

      It gets worse. Looking at the start of Chapter 3, Numerical Results (i), we have the assertion:

      Now we know that (gonna simplify glyphs, sorry)

      e^(iwy) e^(iwy) e^(-iwy)
      ------- = ------- + --------
      p B + iy B - iy

      where none of the terms are defined. It seems chapter 2 most recently defined p = B + iy.

      So his assertion seems to be that:

      e^(iwy) e^(iwy) e^(-iwy)
      ------- = ------- + --------
      B + iy B + iy B - iy

      Or:

      e^(-iwy)
      0 = --------
      B - iy

      Or are my eyes playing tricks with me?

      Phil
    • Andrey Kulsha
      ... I guess they mean the conjugated pair of zeta zeros. Best regards, Andrey
      Message 2 of 8 , Jan 2, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        > It gets worse. Looking at the start of Chapter 3, Numerical Results (i),
        > we have the assertion:
        >
        > Now we know that (gonna simplify glyphs, sorry)
        >
        > e^(iwy) e^(iwy) e^(-iwy)
        > ------- = ------- + --------
        > p B + iy B - iy

        I guess they mean the conjugated pair of zeta zeros.

        Best regards,

        Andrey
      • Phil Carmody
        ... Maths by guesswork? What happened to rigour? Then again, seeing how long those two take to get from 24/8 to 3, I suspect that the papers will be closely
        Message 3 of 8 , Jan 2, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Andrey Kulsha wrote:
          > > e^(iwy)    e^(iwy)   e^(-iwy)
          > > ------- =  ------- + --------
          > >    p        B + iy    B - iy
          >
          >     I guess they mean the conjugated pair of zeta zeros.

          Maths by guesswork? What happened to rigour? Then again, seeing how long those two take to get from 24/8 to 3, I suspect that the papers will be closely associated with rigor mortis.

          Phil
        • Kermit Rose
          _ ... Shows that that dissertation did not have careful proofreading. http://primes.utm.edu/howmany.shtml However in 1914 Littlewood proved that pi(x)-Li(x)
          Message 4 of 8 , Jan 2, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            _
            > 3d. Re: Demichel
            > Posted by: "Phil Carmody" thefatphil@... thefatphil
            > Date: Sun Jan 2, 2011 4:32 am ((PST))
            >
            > --- On Sun, 1/2/11, Andrey Kulsha wrote:
            >> There are also two new (very similar, huh)
            >> papers analyzing and improving these results:
            >> http://eprints.ma.man.ac.uk/1541/01/Munibah2010.pdf
            >
            > "In 1914, numerical evidence proved that π(x)< li(x) for all x. "
            >
            > Ewww...
            >
            > Phil
            >

            Shows that that dissertation did not have careful proofreading.

            http://primes.utm.edu/howmany.shtml

            However in 1914 Littlewood proved that pi(x)-Li(x) assumes both positive
            and negative values infinitely often.

            Kermit
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.