mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Miscellaneous Math

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2017-12-27, 18:31   #1
guptadeva
 
Dec 2017

2×52 Posts
Default yet another 'proof' of the legendary conjecture

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

the common denominator of many recent 'proofs' floating around on the internet seem to be an inadequate use of the english language ... but ok, let the doubt be in favor of the 'accused'

the pdf cited above becomes slightly more readable when substituting the word 'term' or 'expression' instead of the word 'equation'

other 'proofs' are either cyclic (the author assumes the validity of the conjecture in order to prove the conjecture) or simply blurred by chaotic or unrelated sets of equations.

however ... it is always interesting to see which tools or ideas are being presented in these 'proofs' - and since probably nobody today is honestly doubting the validity of the conjecture itself (?) it would be nice to have a real proof someday !

so ... what's the catch here ?
guptadeva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-12-28, 00:46   #2
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

10111001011012 Posts
Default

The first mistake I see is in (4) on page 2. floor((n+1)^2/m) - floor(n^2/m) is indeed at least floor((2n+1)/m), but that doesn't mean you can make the substitution -- you need to majorize/round *up* on terms you're subtracting (and minorize/round down on terms you're adding) if you want to prove a lower bound. Otherwise, just note that floor((n+1)^2/m) - floor(n^2/m) >= 0 and "conclude" that (3) is at least 2n+1.

This is a major, fundamental mistake at the heart of the proof, so it certainly doesn't hold.
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-12-28, 01:26   #3
guptadeva
 
Dec 2017

2·52 Posts
Default

Quote:
This is a major, fundamental mistake at the heart of the proof, so it certainly doesn't hold.
exactly

somehow it's also good to see that the number of correct and insightful papers on this subject is > 0 like e.g. in the following example:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.1323.pdf
guptadeva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-12-28, 02:32   #4
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

8,369 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guptadeva View Post
exactly

somehow it's also good to see that the number of correct and insightful papers on this subject is > 0 like e.g. in the following example:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.1323.pdf
Many things can be interconnected. The twin prime conjecture, can be a statement about goldbach partitions. Goldbach's conjecture, restated as an equidistance conjecture on most of the natural number line.
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-12-28, 04:11   #5
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

17×349 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guptadeva View Post
exactly

somehow it's also good to see that the number of correct and insightful papers on this subject is > 0 like e.g. in the following example:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.1323.pdf
The result in Remark 1 on Conjecture 1 (p. 3) could be improved using work carried out on this forum.
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-12-28, 08:46   #6
guptadeva
 
Dec 2017

2×52 Posts
Default

ok ... yet another fresh and original one:

https://justmathstuff.wordpress.com/...s-conjectures/

the author uses pi(x) to mean the conventinal pi(x)-1 not counting 2 as a prime

some statements are not correct as e.g. in the case x=4:

the pattern 3 a b 3 leading to the conclusion that 3 primes are needed to 'accomodate' a target set of four elements is wrong.

counter-example: the target set 11 13 15 17 needs 4 primes (11,13,3,17) to be 'accomodated'

hence without additional combinatorical arguments, the lemma and the main result are not proven ...

also the statement of the idea: 'each new prime discovered by the sieve is nothing more than the next number that the number 3 failed to accommodate' ... would lead to 35 being prime number

Last fiddled with by guptadeva on 2017-12-28 at 08:53
guptadeva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-12-28, 13:16   #7
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

8,369 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guptadeva View Post
ok ... yet another fresh and original one:

https://justmathstuff.wordpress.com/...s-conjectures/

the author uses pi(x) to mean the conventinal pi(x)-1 not counting 2 as a prime

some statements are not correct as e.g. in the case x=4:

the pattern 3 a b 3 leading to the conclusion that 3 primes are needed to 'accomodate' a target set of four elements is wrong.

counter-example: the target set 11 13 15 17 needs 4 primes (11,13,3,17) to be 'accomodated'

hence without additional combinatorical arguments, the lemma and the main result are not proven ...

also the statement of the idea: 'each new prime discovered by the sieve is nothing more than the next number that the number 3 failed to accommodate' ... would lead to 35 being prime number
Ah, but for 4 consecutive natural numbers it is true it only takes 3 apply the pigeonhole principle. Okay it relies on positioning properly.

Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 2017-12-28 at 13:17
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-12-29, 04:39   #8
guptadeva
 
Dec 2017

3216 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by science_man_88 View Post
Okay it relies on positioning properly.
as much as i like the idea of counting the number of times some multiples of each prime pi with i<=pi(n) falls into the interval [(n-1)^2 , n^2] - in order to actually give a proof of the legendre conjecture there is still an 'epsilon' missing in the argument ... any ideas how to fill the gap ?

Last fiddled with by guptadeva on 2017-12-29 at 04:43
guptadeva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-12-29, 04:43   #9
robtaylor501
 
Dec 2017
California

23 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guptadeva View Post
ok ... yet another fresh and original one:

https://justmathstuff.wordpress.com/...s-conjectures/

the author uses pi(x) to mean the conventinal pi(x)-1 not counting 2 as a prime

some statements are not correct as e.g. in the case x=4:

the pattern 3 a b 3 leading to the conclusion that 3 primes are needed to 'accomodate' a target set of four elements is wrong.

counter-example: the target set 11 13 15 17 needs 4 primes (11,13,3,17) to be 'accomodated'

hence without additional combinatorical arguments, the lemma and the main result are not proven ...

also the statement of the idea: 'each new prime discovered by the sieve is nothing more than the next number that the number 3 failed to accommodate' ... would lead to 35 being prime number
Hello,

I noticed that you're citing my work...but coming to faulty conclusions. Your alleged "counter-example" is not a counter-example of my proof at all. The LEAST number of primes needed to accommodate a target set of four elements is indeed pi(4)+2=3. This is what my proof is concerned with: it answers the question regarding the LEAST number of primes needed. It is possible to find a set of four consecutive odd numbers requiring MORE than 3 primes to accommodate. Indeed, you found such a set with 11 13 15 17. Yet you will never find a set of four consecutive odd numbers that can be accommodated with LESS than 3 primes. Get it?

As for your statement on my discussion regarding the sieve, (a) it has nothing to do with my proof, as my discussion on the sieve was simply providing some background on the history of prime numbers; and (b) I feel you're being a bit too nitpicky. Obviously, what I was saying is that the FIRST odd number not captured by the sieve after running it with 3 (i.e. 5) becomes our next prime, and 5 then becomes the next number we use to run the sieve, etc. We all know how the sieve works. It's elementary. Attempting to use my short background discussion on it in an effort to discredit the remainder of my work is not productive.

Okay, that's the end of my rant. At the end of the day, I am THRILLED people are actually thinking about my work, and I am more than happy to address any questions, comments, concerns, etc. you have regarding my proofs of Legendre's, Brocard's, and Andrica's, as I am certain that my proofs are correct. I love math, I don't bite, and I'm a lawyer, so I believe my grasp of the English language is more than adequate.

Let's discuss!

Cheers,

Rob Taylor, Esq.
robtaylor501 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-12-29, 06:33   #10
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

221068 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robtaylor501 View Post
I love math, I don't bite, and I'm a lawyer, so I believe my grasp of the English language is more than adequate.

Let's discuss!
Let's.

Do you prefer to code in C, C++, Perl, Python, PHP, Go or C#?
chalsall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-12-29, 06:39   #11
robtaylor501
 
Dec 2017
California

23 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chalsall View Post
Let's.

Do you prefer to code in C, C++, Perl, Python, PHP, Go or C#?
That assumes I know how to code. I don't.
robtaylor501 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Claimed proof of the ABC conjecture (Zha, 2009) R.D. Silverman Math 6 2019-04-22 00:03
Collatz Conjecture Proof Steve One Miscellaneous Math 21 2018-03-08 08:18
The Beal Conjecture Proof Arxenar Miscellaneous Math 1 2013-09-07 09:59
A proof for the Twin Prime Conjecture Carl Fischbach Miscellaneous Math 7 2009-06-24 05:52
Proof of Goldbach Conjecture vector Miscellaneous Math 5 2007-12-01 14:43

All times are UTC. The time now is 00:30.

Sun Nov 1 00:30:26 UTC 2020 up 51 days, 21:41, 2 users, load averages: 2.06, 1.86, 1.81

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.