- On 9/12/2012 11:03 AM, Maximilian Hasler wrote:
>> --- On Tue, 9/11/12, Steven Harvey <harvey563@...> wrote:

Actually the ABC conjecture states that for any r > 1,

>>> http://www.nature.com/news/proof-claimed-for-deep-connection-between-primes-1.11378?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20120911

>>>

>>> Comments, anyone?

>

> Hum,

>

> "In this case, in which r=2, sqp(abc)^r/c is nearly always greater

> than 1, and always greater than zero. "

>

> "Nearly always" does not mean anything, and "always greater than zero"

> is trivial, for a,b,c positive.

>

> Maximilian

>

sqp(abc)^r/c > 1, except for some finite number of exceptions.

There's your "nearly always", reworded to mean something. - Phil Carmody has suggested that there are standard texts that are not pertinent in reference.

Phil, would you be so kind as to name these (to facilitate answering the question I have--and others may--of 'rhetoric' in a 'mathematical world')? I don't know the leveling you place on this statement. Nor is the 'a couple of these' phrase clear. You may save us some time if this is a form of play. You may push somebody serious onto the ledge with the other already serious people to this question of validation. Thank you, if you would. And no offense intended in singling you out (to anyone). I merely wish to know what these books are (whether, now, I understand your expression entirely, partly, or not at all; and whether I can quickly understand it or only slowly, if I ever do).

Yours Truly, James G. Merickel

--- On Wed, 9/12/12, Phil Carmody <thefatphil@...> wrote:

From: Phil Carmody <thefatphil@...>

Subject: Re: [PrimeNumbers] news re ABC conjecture

To: "primenumbers@yahoogroups.com" <primenumbers@yahoogroups.com>

Date: Wednesday, September 12, 2012, 9:43 AM

--- On Tue, 9/11/12, Steven Harvey <harvey563@...> wrote:

> http://www.nature.com/news/proof-claimed-for-deep-connection-between-primes-1.11378?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20120911

>

> Comments, anyone?

Well, the maths is so far above my head I cannot comment on it at all. However, I must say that I'm worried that he seems to be working in a vacuum - about 60% of the references in his paper were to his own prior work, and many of the others were to standard background texts not pertinent to the main thrust of his paper. If people are going to give this the thumbs up, they're going to have to do a lot of groundwork on his prior stuff too. I'll just wait until the Taos, Mazurs, and Elkies are satisfied. I'm prepared to wait several years.

Having said that, a couple of those have made some fairly positive comments about the paper being worth looking into already so we're not looking at Gene Ray inventing a Time Tesseract.

Phil

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] - On 9/12/2012 5:35 PM, James Merickel wrote:
> Phil Carmody has suggested that there are standard texts that are not pertinent in reference.

Here's one from the bibliography:

>

> Phil, would you be so kind as to name these (to facilitate answering the question I have--and others may--of 'rhetoric' in a 'mathematical world')? I don't know the leveling you place on

> this statement. Nor is the 'a couple of these' phrase clear. You may save us some time if this is a form of play. You may push somebody serious onto the ledge with the other already

> serious people to this question of validation. Thank you, if you would. And no offense intended in singling you out (to anyone). I merely wish to know what these books are (whether, now,

> I understand your expression entirely, partly, or not at all; and whether I can quickly understand it or only slowly, if I ever do).

>

> Yours Truly, James G. Merickel

[DmMn] H. Dym and H. P. McKean, Fourier Series and Integrals, Academic Press (1972).

There are others. - --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,

Steven Harvey <harvey563@...> wrote:

> http://www.nature.com/news/proof-claimed-for-deep-connection-between-primes-1.11378?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20120911

The claimed inequality of "bounded discrepancy classes"

in Theorem A of Paper IV is mind-boggling general;

much wider than ABC. It may take a long time for a few

knowledgeable souls to work through these 4 dense papers.

I am deeply impressed by how hard the maths community

is prepared to work on corporate validation of significant

claims. Here is a recent example:

http://www.iitg.ernet.in/a.saikia/workshop.htm

David - --- On Thu, 9/13/12, James Merickel <moralforce120@...> wrote:
> Phil Carmody has suggested that there

Perhaps "pertinent" was too weak a word. "an essential or direct precursor" would have been better. For example, Jack pulled out the Fourier Transform one. IIRC, other ones which had a publishing date before the author's first paper caught my eye (Wiles?). There of course may be some relevance, some use, of such papers, but they're more for scene setting than anything else.

> are standard texts that are not pertinent in reference.

Phil