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

Bounded Gaps on Prime Numbers

Expand Messages
  • bobgillson
    If Tom Zhang had submitted his paper regarding the above, to this group, how many members would have been able to judge the validity or otherwise of his proof?
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 11 12:42 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      If Tom Zhang had submitted his paper regarding the above, to this group, how many members would have been able to judge the validity or otherwise of his proof?

      Just asking!

      Bob
    • Jack Brennen
      I ve never seen discussion on this group of analytic number theory at that level. I have seen it on the NMBRTHRY list, which I also subscribe to. The high
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 11 1:16 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        I've never seen discussion on this group of analytic number
        theory at that level. I have seen it on the NMBRTHRY list,
        which I also subscribe to. The high end of math discussed
        here and the low end of math discussed there occasionally
        do overlap.

        That being said, I would wager that only a small percentage
        of the folks on the NMBRTHRY list are qualified to judge the
        validity of Zhang's proof -- but those who are qualified have
        almost certainly seen it by now.

        It's also a very different situation than Mochizuki's claimed
        proof of the ABC Conjecture last year, which as far as I know
        has not been fully digested by anybody. I asked one famous
        number theorist if he had an opinion on Mochizuki's proof, and
        he wasn't even planning to look at it, although he recognized
        Mochizuki's talent and was willing to accept the idea that it
        might be a valid proof.

        Zhang's proof has not only been digested by other number
        theorists, but now that he has showed how to open the door,
        others are improving on his results.

        Jack


        On 7/11/2013 12:42 PM, bobgillson@... wrote:
        > If Tom Zhang had submitted his paper regarding the above, to this group, how many members would have been able to judge the validity or otherwise of his proof?
        >
        > Just asking!
        >
        > Bob
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Unsubscribe by an email to: primenumbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > The Prime Pages : http://primes.utm.edu/
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • bobgillson
        Yes, Jack, I suspected that this was the case. Perhaps it s time for someone to make lots of money, by explaining Zhang s proof in simple terms, for us lesser
        Message 3 of 3 , Jul 11 1:48 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Yes, Jack, I suspected that this was the case.

          Perhaps it's time for someone to make lots of money, by explaining Zhang's proof in simple terms, for us lesser mortals. Even following Terence Tao's and associates' Polymath project does not over reveal too much of the mystery, nor how theirs claims of improved parameters are justified.

          Maybe Simon Singh will give it a go - he did quite a good job with Andrew Wiles and the understanding of the proof for Fermat's Last Theorem. Mind you, John Derbyshire might also give it a try - the sooner the better!

          Bob

          On 11 Jul 2013, at 21:16, Jack Brennen <jfb@...> wrote:

          > I've never seen discussion on this group of analytic number
          > theory at that level. I have seen it on the NMBRTHRY list,
          > which I also subscribe to. The high end of math discussed
          > here and the low end of math discussed there occasionally
          > do overlap.
          >
          > That being said, I would wager that only a small percentage
          > of the folks on the NMBRTHRY list are qualified to judge the
          > validity of Zhang's proof -- but those who are qualified have
          > almost certainly seen it by now.
          >
          > It's also a very different situation than Mochizuki's claimed
          > proof of the ABC Conjecture last year, which as far as I know
          > has not been fully digested by anybody. I asked one famous
          > number theorist if he had an opinion on Mochizuki's proof, and
          > he wasn't even planning to look at it, although he recognized
          > Mochizuki's talent and was willing to accept the idea that it
          > might be a valid proof.
          >
          > Zhang's proof has not only been digested by other number
          > theorists, but now that he has showed how to open the door,
          > others are improving on his results.
          >
          > Jack
          >
          >
          > On 7/11/2013 12:42 PM, bobgillson@... wrote:
          >> If Tom Zhang had submitted his paper regarding the above, to this group, how many members would have been able to judge the validity or otherwise of his proof?
          >>
          >> Just asking!
          >>
          >> Bob
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> ------------------------------------
          >>
          >> Unsubscribe by an email to: primenumbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >> The Prime Pages : http://primes.utm.edu/
          >>
          >> Yahoo! Groups Links
          >>
          >>
          >>
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.