Invitation to Dr. Silverman

[devarajkandadai]

To prove or disprove my first conjecture (pertaining to R-Z function) on
www.crorepatibaniye.com/failurefunctions

A.K. Devaraj

[devarajkandadai]

Originally Posted by devarajkandadai

To prove or disprove my first conjecture (pertaining to R-Z function) on
www.crorepatibaniye.com/failurefunctions

A.K. Devaraj

I am not surprised that till date there has been no response to this invitaton(which can be considered an open one ).Many analytical number
theorists have been baffled by it .
A.K. Devaraj

[Wacky]

Originally Posted by devarajkandadai

I am not surprised that till date there has been no response to this invitaton

Nor am I.

IMHO, Dr. Silverman has already given you as much response as is justified.

And I have given you three lines more than you deserve.

[amateur]

Originally Posted by devarajkandadai

I am not surprised that till date there has been no response to this invitaton(which can be considered an open one ).Many analytical number
theorists have been baffled by it .
A.K. Devaraj

don't worry devarajkandadai, Dr. Silverman and Wacky represent here the birds who love to poop on the top of your head on the street:))

I don't understand your theory, but I have a feeling it must be good if Dr. Silverman hasn't scolded you for it yet :)

[akruppa]

I, too, think Wacky's response was a bit harsher than absolutely necessary.

I have taken a very brief look at the "failure functions". Apparantly the idea is instead of looking for elements from a set that satisfy a given condition, to look for elements that don't satisfy (=fail) said condition. When you get only a subset of the failing elements and you're dealing with infinite sets, those functions won't help you a whole lot answering the original question (finding elements that satisfy).

This looks like a pretty pointless exercise to me...

My guess as to why Dr. Silverman did not respond to this thread is that he took a brief look at the idea and chose to spend his time otherwise. Which is probably the best reaction he could give you, I expect you would have liked the alternative less.

Alex

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by amateur

don't worry devarajkandadai, Dr. Silverman and Wacky represent here the birds who love to poop on the top of your head on the street:))

I don't understand your theory, but I have a feeling it must be good if Dr. Silverman hasn't scolded you for it yet :)

DEVRAJ, my contemporary in the same city, and a septuagenarian, has been negatively portrayed by our experts just because he was open and truthful in his threads and that he confessed many times that he didn’t know the basics of computer programming.

In the latest incident please refer to this Thread ‘Invitation to Dr, Silverman’ which has a very unkind, uncharitable, and immature retort. In every thread he has initiated he has been unjustly criticised for just being plain, frank and honest. Please refer to his threads ‘Programming a test’ and ‘Decorum in the forum’ to see what I mean.

I have known Devraja for many years and can vouch for the man as simple and unassuming. He has presented a paper that was read out at the prestigious American Math Society held at Hawaii which was very favourably received by the math community last year.

Devraj’s purely intuitive formula in his thread ‘A counter example anyone?’ is pregnant with hidden meanings which have yet to be analysed by our experts.

Lo! We have another Ramanujan in our midst!! Please take note.

The formulas (p1-1)(N-1)/ [(p2-1)(p3-1] etc. in cyclic order where N is square free and p1,p2,p3 are its prime factors leads to a sequence which gives strange composites. Besides these, it covers all the Carmichael numbers (abbr: no.s)
And this is truly amazing!.

Incidentally Carl Pomerance is his correspondence with Devraj in 1984 proved his formula is true for all Carmichael no.s and will always yield an integer for their prime factors.

Thanks to Maxal, philmoore and others for realising the import of Devraj’s threads and labouring over these sequences and registering ‘Devraj Numbers’ in OEIS as A104017

There are many questions to be asked of ‘Devraj numbers’.
Are there any even no.s in these “D” no.s?
Is there a relationship between Dave’s formula and the sure shot Korselts criterion for Carmichael no.s which is n= = p{modp(p-1)} ?
Could one be derived from the other?
Can anyone repeat Pomerance’s proof or give a similar one as his original is hard to decipher?
Is there a relationship of ‘D’ no.s one to the other?
A cursory check reveals the numbers mostly end in 1 and 5 tho’ I’ve only checked the 1st few of them

These and many other questions are worth pondering over and finding answers, as these are an original part of math research which needs to be commended and not shouted down and shoo-ed off
Hats off to you Devraj!
Mally.

[amateur]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

DEVRAJ, my contemporary in the same city, and a septuagenarian, :

Obviously he is doing it for the love of it and he shouldn't be reprimanded for it. I wish him the best.

I don't know if Alex is right or not, but he at least took the effort to explain his point.

[maxal]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

Incidentally Carl Pomerance is his correspondence with Devraj in 1984 proved his formula is true for all Carmichael no.s and will always yield an integer for their prime factors.

I would be interested to see his proof. Could you please qoute it here?
Thanks.

[Wacky]

Originally Posted by akruppa

I, too, think Wacky's response was a bit harsher than absolutely necessary.

I have taken a very brief look ...<snip>

This looks like a pretty pointless exercise to me...

My guess as to why Dr. Silverman did not respond to this thread is that he took a brief look at the idea and chose to spend his time otherwise. Which is probably the best reaction he could give you, I expect you would have liked the alternative less.

Alex

Thank you, Alex. You are correct.

I formally apologize to Devraj. (Sorry, if I got the name wrong, but I never learned the proper parsing of names from that part of the world).

Sir, you have always presented yourself in a gentlemanly manner. My reply failed to meet that standard.

Like Alex, I briefly looked at the idea and, frankly, concluded that it was not worth a comment. This was especially true following the suggestions that some of us refrain from answering posts.

The real problem may be that we have something of a language/cultural barrier. I, probably incorrectly, viewed your most recent posting as a taunt. The terse wording of your initial request followed by your follow up caused me to think that you were just some crank "trying to pick a fight" by presenting drivel and then challenging an expert to respond to it. If that were your strategy, then I think my comment would have been appropriate.

On the other hand, if your initial request was an honest effort to seek evaluation of your proposed idea, then I misinterpreted both the initial request and, especially, the follow up.

In summary, let me remind all of the members of this forum that most of us have never met. We come from very diverse backgrounds, both cultural and academic. It may well be worthwhile to expend the additional time to be a bit more explicit in our communications because it is very easy to misinterpret a few words.

If by my posting, I have caused unwarranted insult, I apologize for doing so.

Richard "Wacky" Wackerbarth

[devarajkandadai]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

DEVRAJ, my contemporary in the same city, and a septuagenarian, has been negatively portrayed by our experts just because he was open and truthful in his threads and that he confessed many times that he didn’t know the basics of computer programming.

In the latest incident please refer to this Thread ‘Invitation to Dr, Silverman’ which has a very unkind, uncharitable, and immature retort. In every thread he has initiated he has been unjustly criticised for just being plain, frank and honest. Please refer to his threads ‘Programming a test’ and ‘Decorum in the forum’ to see what I mean.

I have known Devraja for many years and can vouch for the man as simple and unassuming. He has presented a paper that was read out at the prestigious American Math Society held at Hawaii which was very favourably received by the math community last year.

Devraj’s purely intuitive formula in his thread ‘A counter example anyone?’ is pregnant with hidden meanings which have yet to be analysed by our experts.

Lo! We have another Ramanujan in our midst!! Please take note.

The formulas (p1-1)(N-1)/ [(p2-1)(p3-1] etc. in cyclic order where N is square free and p1,p2,p3 are its prime factors leads to a sequence which gives strange composites. Besides these, it covers all the Carmichael numbers (abbr: no.s)
And this is truly amazing!.

Incidentally Carl Pomerance is his correspondence with Devraj in 1984 proved his formula is true for all Carmichael no.s and will always yield an integer for their prime factors.

Thanks to Maxal, philmoore and others for realising the import of Devraj’s threads and labouring over these sequences and registering ‘Devraj Numbers’ in OEIS as A104017

There are many questions to be asked of ‘Devraj numbers’.
Are there any even no.s in these “D” no.s?
Is there a relationship between Dave’s formula and the sure shot Korselts criterion for Carmichael no.s which is n= = p{modp(p-1)} ?
Could one be derived from the other?
Can anyone repeat Pomerance’s proof or give a similar one as his original is hard to decipher?
Is there a relationship of ‘D’ no.s one to the other?
A cursory check reveals the numbers mostly end in 1 and 5 tho’ I’ve only checked the 1st few of them

These and many other questions are worth pondering over and finding answers, as these are an original part of math research which needs to be commended and not shouted down and shoo-ed off
Hats off to you Devraj!
Mally.

Thank you, Malcolm. There can be no comparison between Ramanujan and self.Thanks for your kind sentiments all the same.
A.K. Devaraj

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by maxal

I would be interested to see his proof. Could you please qoute it here?
Thanks.

I quote from my post
Quote/=mally]
Can anyone repeat Pomerance’s proof or give a similar one as his original is hard to decipher?/unquote].

The Zerox copy I have is indistinct and the writing very small. as I have said its hard to decipher. I will get Devraj to send it to you as after all it's his private letter. Otherwise Ill try to scan the copy and send you one if my scanner is behaving itself! of course with his permission.
Mally