/sci/ - Science & Math

pg 2

page 3.

page 4 - This paper is an update from my work from about 3-4 years ago.

pg 5. waiting for the post timer edition.

pg 6. gopnik music in teh background edition.

This version is significantly improved, both in content and publication.

1st version wasn't even in Latex, I was just trying to get something down on paper. This fills in many spots.

page 9: still waiting on post timer - maximum rigor edition.

pg 10: chemical bros in the background edition.

pg 11 - Two pages to go edition

page 12 - I need a job and friends, please send help edition.

page 13 - Fin.

>>12104952
>inb4 this thread produces another meme
>inb4 OP is a new or previously existing schizoposter like solivagus, arcon/tookster, copperfag, etc

O.k. here's a Scottish chonk for good measure. Have fun, I'll be back in a few hours.

>>12104987
previously existing :)

>>12104952
Post pdf faggot.

I read the first 2 pages: I can't understand what the heck are you trying to say. Could you, for the love of your fucking self-esteem, write a decent paragraph that explain what are you doing? And please have mercy of me, don't write some trivial thing as `all primes except the number 2 are odd'. We all know that, we are not fucking retarded. You wasted 2 fucking minutes of my life just with a prelude to nothingness.

>excel table "proofs"

>>12104952
>proof of the twin prime conjecture
>"straight forward strategy"
>excel
>mathematical expression not in math mode
>some unspecified surface

I'm calling shenanigans.

>>12104952
I think you've proven that the first r rows miss an infinite number of values of n for a given r, but the problem here is that the smallest n for a given r increases without bound as r does. In the limit, you haven't actually proven that there are an infinite number of values of n that all rows miss, since the first such value grows to infinity, leaving no actual natural numbers on the list.

is this the new schizo thread?

>>12105002
Can you do that here? Pdf is only 264 kb, i could save it as an image file type, would that work? idk never tried it here.

anyways I will at least put it up on vixra, and could post a link once it posts, but I can't get to that until 3 or so hours yet.

>>12105171
That was done for your convenience Pepe, and is not needed for the proof.

>>12105218
I know right? Some nerve thinking you can solve these things with algebra, or "straight forward strategies."

>>12105309
thanks for looking.
I see what your saying, but that's basically the whole point of the proof generating the results eq37 and eq 38. They do explicitly show infinite values of n that are in the intersection of all rows on the surface, figure 3, that are then not in any and all rows on surfaces 1 and 2. In terms of what you said, it shows that the smallest n for a given r does not increase without bound, in fact it shows that there will be a minimum, it is bound, exactly what minimum it is, and then an infinite number of n after that in that row.

i'll Be back in 2-3 hours.

Infinitely Complex Topology Changes with Quaternions and Torsion
https://vixra.org/abs/1505.0131

>>12106783
Anyways, you can see how the twin surfaces are the past and future aleph- and Omega-branes. My idea was that if you can set up some kind of propagation if the H-brane, you would always have to have twin prime-numbered aleph- and Omega-branes because any other kind of brane would interfere with the "harmonic phase" of the branes whose levels of aleph were even divisors.

>twin surfaces

>>12106792
>Anyways, you can see how the twin surfaces are the past and future aleph- and Omega-branes.

I can see roughly what you might be getting at conceptually. If/that you're trying to represent the the aleph and omega branes as linearly independent at some level, and using the twins as a way to guarantee that independence. Then using the go between surface, Figure 3 in the proof, to generate the propagation between the before and after pair.

But again, that's a rough take at interpreting what you were getting at, and it makes me think of certain questions, such as:

Couldn't you just use any pairs of primes, not necessarily ones that were twins, or even any other pairs of numbers that were not multiples of each other? Were you just suggesting twins because they were an easy choice?

Also, doesn't the propagation describe the phase, or aren't they tied together at some level? If you used twin prime surfaces for both branes, wouldn't the harmonic phase difference be set to a constant of 2? That obviously ties into why you say it would interfere with even aleph level s, but how would it "interfere" versus just being part of the transformation?

It sounds like you are quantizing the propagation which could be accurate or not, i have no idea.

Either way, there are unique sets of values between all 6 sets within or outside of the ranges of the 2 twin surfaces and the 3rd go between surface, that could possible be used to do some or all of what you're suggesting.

>>12107201
*should say other pairs with no common divisor

>>12106665
Can you post the first few values of n generated by the last formula (and the twin primes they generate)?

>>12106665
>Some nerve thinking you can solve these things with algebra, or "straight forward strategies."
Yes.

>>12107213
Thanks, That's a really good question. The formula doesn't generate the specific values of n,but only guarantees that such values exist.

The way it does so is the following.
We know there are infinite values 3x+2 in the first row that are not on either surface.
We know that an infinite subset of those values can map to row 2. We know an infinite subset of those can map to row 3, and so on.
It shows that there is no row you can get to where you can't map an infinite subset from the first row to that row.
Therefore there's always some infinite subset of 3x+2 that does not appear on any row, and is then not on either surface.

Again it doesn't say what that subset is, just that it exists, which is good enough.

In practicality, the best way to use the proof to generate twins is to simply find the next value not on surface one or 2 and you get your next twin. You can Generate as many as you like.

>>12107201
>It sounds like you are quantizing the propagation
The propagation would be discrete, so it quantized in the sense of English, but often times one uses "quantization" to refer to the definition of a Lie algebra which is beyond what I was even thinking about or find useful to think about. Basically my idea was if H is on the nth level of aleph, then the two adjacent surfaces are on the (n+1) and (n-1) levels, so they are separate by "two" in the way that twin primes are. I wanted to add quantum effects as "bleed over" from other levels of aleph, in the sense that perturbations are written as power series, and in the that scheme prime numbers would become important because the things identified with their "phase" would depend on the level of aleph, which need to be prime to avoid contributions from lower, causal levels of aleph. (Prime branes would interfere with future retroscausal branes, however.) Then, by the equation[math]\Phi^{n+1}=\Phi^n+\Phi^{n-1}, one would develop some kind of proof by induction. It was just the glimmer of idea I had a long time ago and I didn't think about it in a while. However, I suggested the same strategy for solving Erdos--Strauss last year.

>>12107213
I could also add that for a given R it does increase the chance that the associated set of n's, which it does generate at that point, will contain twins.

You can also duplicate the process 2 more times for row 2 using the different allowed sets, giving 3 different versions of eq37/38, all of which would pull out different infinite sets. Then for each of those 3, there are 5 more versions from the 3rd row, and so on. As you go, some of those versions will not generate infinite sets, ones where there are no integer solutions between adjacent rows, but there will be an infinite number that do, so you literally have an infinite set of infinite set generators.

Also because the set is diagonalized, and because the initial value in each row increases, for any n you do generate given an R, you never need to check past row=column1(n), the column value of the value of n in row 1, showing yet another bound.

>>12104952
This is great. Finally a new schizo with an actual paper to back up that schizophrenia. We will watch your schizo career with great interest. What do you think is the next great problem you'll tackle? Perhaps you will dabble in other schizo's territory? The well-known Riemann Hypothesis?

>>12107284
Yeah, discrete, that's the sense I meant it in.

oh,I think I get more of what you're getting at, too.

Something like, you would then associate a set of primes {p1,p3,..p(2n+1)} to the levels of aleph to keep them all independent. And let omega be the corresponding {p2,p4,p(2n)}.

Another similar way to keep all the values independent is to normalize each to a power of 10,or whatever base you're using, and then each value gets its own decimal place.

>(Prime branes would interfere with future retroscausal branes, however.)
again sort of the fractal nature of the problem and a restatement of part of the challenge. You would have to establish independency across the time variable also.

>>12106783
Tooker smells schizophrenia and feels the calling to shitpost.

>>12107346
Why dabble in a solved problem?

>>12107349
Yeah, this is great. OP, take note. I see no Gundams in your paper. You are still 5/10 but luckily you have Tooker here. The one and only 11/10 of schizophrenics. Tooker is really a true masterpiece. Unfortunately, Tooker has been suffering from severe anal and penile infections and I suspect he will die soon. We need you, OP, to become his protégé.

>>12107346
anon... I hate to tell you...

>>12107349
I know, right?

>>12107356
Tooker is an absolute beast. Between his judo, his math, and his righteous indignation toward wrongdoers, and despite changing the RH to suit his needs, I would be happy to learn or work with him, and wish I had that kind of raw output speed.

>>12107356
That's a robotech.

>>12107392
>Tooker is an absolute beast. Between his judo, his math, and his righteous indignation toward wrongdoers, and despite changing the RH to suit his needs, I would be happy to learn or work with him, and wish I had that kind of raw output speed.

Indeed. The next stepping stone in your career must be to say the N-word in public I believe in you.

>>12107393
Yeah yeah Tooker and you are God and your mother a demon. We got it.

>>12105218
all surfaces are specified.

but what did you mean not in math mode? latex was in math mode. you mean the writing in the text? Does no one write common language proofs anymore?

I was taught simple and single line equations that didn't use uncommon symbols were acceptable in-line.

>>12107398
I think getting expelled from college before you can finish your degree is the main career bottleneck.

>>12107398
Are you calling Helene my mother? I think my mother is Elizabeth, no?

>>12107452
>I think getting expelled from college before you can finish your degree is the main career bottleneck.
Well, that is what happens when you rape two women.

>>12107455
>Are you calling Helene my mother? I think my mother is Elizabeth, no?
You keep changing your lore Tooker. I swear to God you have said that Helene was your mother. Come on, clear it up right now. We are writing history as we speak. The future generations need the details.

an inequality does not define a surface. to find such $n$ you are looking for planes $z-n$, with such that the plane does not intersect the hypersurfaces 2xy + x + y and 2xy + x + y - 1 at *any integer* lattice points x,y. Didn't read past page 2 but I can tell you are going to be a grade A scizoposter. Your grasp of a logical argument is about as tenuous as wet toilet paper.

>>12107477
nvm it seems you get that. im sorry I was rude, you've clearly spent some time on this. I'm still going to be utterly shocked if Idon't find an error in your reasoning if I press further. I just had a strong pang of guilt from my comments.

If you want to integrate over a specific shape inside of a larger shape, a delta function is the thing that defines the specific shape in the integrand. The shape is given by the delta function. You can say, "The shape is the delta function is wrong," if you're reading something with the intention not to understand it and if you're reading it with the intention to understand it you can say, "I understand how a delta function works, and I see the obvious and only relationship that they author could mean by saying the 'the surface is a delta function.'"

Let f(x,y,z) be a density function defined in R^3. Let's say you want to you find the energy in the y=0 surface. This is a reader's presumed familiarity with the physicist's toolbox comes into play. The integral that tells you all of the energy
[eqn]E_\text{tot}=\iiint dV \,f(x,y,z)[/eqn]
If you want to specify just the y=0 surface, then you stuck it in there as a delta function
[eqn]E_{y=0}=\iiint dV \,\delta(y)f(x,y,z)=\iint dA\, f(x,0,z)[/eqn]

Anyone who understands physics can understand what it means for a surface to "be" a delta function. It all comes down to whether or not the reader is reading in good faith to assume the writer knows what he is talking about or if he is reading detractively with the intention to point out that everything is wrong.

Do these detractors seriously expect you to believe, "Oh! I thought the author meant that a surface was an identical function in the sense of the theory of functions?" Do they really? That's the bad faith reading. The good faith reading is, "I understand the relationship between surfaces and delta function." In brief physics paper, such as the PRL style I was going for, it is ALWAYS required for the reader to say, "Yeah... um... ok, I guess I see what they are saying there," with the ultra-brief introductory sections. My introduction was also ultra-brief, and I wrote it that way on purpose.

Additionally, seizing on that aspect of my very short paper is completely retarded because it is only my very brief segue to build a context for the ROCK FUCKING SOLID computational results in the paper. So... even if they "really" couldn't understand how a surface is a delta function, could they not understand [math]8\pi^/\pi^2=8\pi[/math]?

What about [math]\Phi^3\pi^3+2\pi\approx 137[/math]? This was a "rapid communication" paper designed to rapidly communicate the result. I could have just written these two arithmetic operations and signed my name to them. However, I made a segue as well. The detractors' insistence on directing all of the attention toward the segue is a distraction device for not having to acknowledge the AMAZING numerical results.

Stop talking about the segue. If you think the segue sucks, fine. What is your opinion about the main result? Do you keep harping on the fucking segue so you can avoid ever addressing my claim that these two results CHANGED THE ENTIRE PHYSICS WORLD FOREVER?

Fuck haters.

>>12107540
based tooker not knowing what a delta function is
hint: it's not a function

Look at how my development of the result follows exactly Higgs' development of his own seminal result. If they say it was too much for me to assume that my reader would understand what I meant when I said "a surface is function," then they are liars, IMO, and I can't disagree with their opinion even if they aren't lying.

What is their opinion on how the actual meat of my paper is given in the exact same form as the meat of Higgs' seminal two page paper?

>>12107564
some asshole not knowing that physicists don't give a fuck about math

>>12107483
lol, no worries, I've heard worse

yeah, I'm fine if people do find a real fatal flaw, It's hard enough just to get people who even want to discuss the topic or work on proofs, however I think it's fairly solid.

Especially the first part, the insight that proving the conjecture is as simple as showing infinite values not on those 2 surface should open the problem up to a number of people when put into that context.

I suspect, once the numerical analysis guys catch on, there will be all sorts of proofs based on that method popping up. Like I said in paper, i suspect others could show infinite values not in the range in a much easier way. Still, one way is good enough.

>>12107566
not twin related, but physics, but have you ever seen Sweetser's ideas from 15 years ago? He had some good points in here, i never got around to review it more, you may like it if you've never seen it.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/unifying-gravity-and-em.87097/

>>12107605
its just that, this 'insight ' about the surfaces is just a simple transformation using basic algebra. I doubt it will yield anything and that thousands of mathematicians over centuries haven't found. Just look at Fermat's last theorem. Its just a class of diophanite equation and showing it has no solutions requires no less than establishing a connection between eliptic curves and modular forms. The TPC is something that requires mathematical sophistication, soaking the nut as Groethendick would say.

>>12107672

Maybe.

Everything is hard, until it's easy. The problem is only roughly 170 years old, and there's probably a lot less people that have analyzed it than it seems.

It really is a simple way to state the problem from the fact that primes are odds that aren't odd composites. Prove that there are infinite values not on this lattice surface has a much different ring to most people than prove there are infinitely many primes 2 apart.

>>12106783
>>12106783
I have read your paper here https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237 and I have a question, will you answer it?

Well thanks again for letting thread up, I know they usually last 1-3 days before they die off. I'll try to get a pdf link up tomorrow, if it's still around, and I'm still open to discussing any other twin proofs too if you all have any and or they are ones I can understand or comment about.

gn y'all

>pdf link
https://gofile.io/d/Fid9Ph

>>12109067
Nice, Thanks. Still need to add it to vix, I may do one final editing revision first, after and since I've been keep re-reading it over the last few days, and could make small tweaks. Won't really change much.

>>12106783
Fuck off, Tooks - this is some other schizo's thread.

Here's another attempt by a different author. It would take me along time to check it all, but at first glance it has many of the familiar elements, and it's at least developed enough that there aren't obvious errors without getting into it.

Has anyone seen or know about this one? Anyone really good at modular math read it and see any errors?

http://pubs.sciepub.com/tjant/8/3/1/index.html

:(

>>12109218
>I've been keep re-reading it over the last few days, and could make small tweaks
can't tell if stalker

>>12110238
Thanks Arcon, I know you've helped. I'm always open to hear your suggestions. Even from the limited feedback from this thread I have seen a few improvements too. I'm sure some could help me explain what I'm saying even a bit clearer. Or like I've said, I know there must be even more elegant ways to show the ordering of those surfaces.

p.s. I liked the way you handled that naysayer in the comments on your vixra post, who basically called you out with no substance, who just didn't like you trying to stand in your own power.

>>12104952
Look at this:
There are infinite number of primes because you can always multiply last two coprimes and substract two to get another number and it's pair.

Quite shorter, isn't it?

>>12110590
*multiply two coprimes, add one and then substract two.

There's also series using two array buffers which can generate every prime in series but I forgot that because somebody was paining me with his cheapness.

>>12110590
>>12110599
thanks anon, I hadn't heard that coprime relationship before, it's interesting. The case here is to find infinite Twin primes, not just primes.
There's probably an adapted version using that formula too though.

>>12110599
Sorry, it doesn't work, I am drunk, but there's an equation... Baybe involving factorial of larger coprime +1 -1 should be coprime, I don't longer valid.

>>12110264
>>12109218
It seems like both of you put the same nasty gangstalker meme in your comments. Why do you do this?

>>12110740
? not sure where you're getting that from. why would you think that one comment was stalker, and what meme are you referring to?

I did make some small improvements, such as I added a paragraph at the end for further rigor and clarity, changed the abstract and section 1 slightly to remove redundancy, and I added math mode inline for that one anon to make it even more pretty.