Let's say I've solved Goldbach's conjecture, like every other crackpot is claiming. Where would I go to get your solution checked and errors pointed out? What did you do when you tried? I have a weird feeling that everybody who's into math tried to solve it, at least once.

File: 200 KB, 480x555, 1283609432867.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Aug 3 11:08:04 2013 No.5944102 [Reply] [Original]

Let's say I've solved Goldbach's conjecture, like every other crackpot is claiming. Where would I go to get your solution checked and errors pointed out? What did you do when you tried? I have a weird feeling that everybody who's into math tried to solve it, at least once.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 11:09:04 2013 No.5944105 http://arxiv.org/

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 11:11:34 2013 No.5944107 >>5944102 write paper and submit to math journal

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 11:11:34 2013 No.5944108 >>5944105 Nope.

Anonymous Sat Aug 3 11:15:04 2013 No.5944114

>>5944105
>>5944108
You can't upload to arxiv unless you are affiliated with an acclaimed university and have recommendations AFAIK.
>>5944107
I'm not claiming it's true, I am curious why it (most likely) isn't. I'm not sure a journal will give me a debunk rather than LOLNOPE GTFO. Also I think you need to be university affiliated to submit to any serious journal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 11:15:33 2013 No.5944115 >>5944105 Isn't there that site that's somewhat of a parody on arxiv, where everybody can upload?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 11:16:03 2013 No.5944118 The Goldbach conjecture has been disproved. http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0129

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 11:20:34 2013 No.5944125 >>5944118 Did he produce a number? No? Then it isn't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 11:25:33 2013 No.5944129 >>5944125 but that's wrong man, you can disproove a propertie without giving a conterexample.

Anonymous Sat Aug 3 11:28:03 2013 No.5944134

>>5944118
His approach is ridiculous. Basically what he's claiming is if a number is large enough, it isn't a prime, which is ridiculous.

>>5944129
Disproval implies it doesn't hold for all n E N. If that is true, counterexample would be trivial to produce. That's why computers churn out enormous numbers and none of them violated Goldbach's.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 11:34:33 2013 No.5944138 >>5944118 Ah, that's the site. I'll upload tonight most likely. If it's true, I also have a formula that tells us in how many ways you can write a number, for example, 10=5+5=7+3, which is 2 ways.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 11:36:33 2013 No.5944142 >>5944138 Oh yeah, if somebody is good with programming here, make a program that bruteforces it for some large number and I'll try and guess in how many ways it can be written.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 11:39:34 2013 No.5944144 >>5944134 >If that is true, counterexample would be trivial to produce oh yeah and for what reason ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 11:49:04 2013 No.5944154 >>5944138 not sure if troll or just naive

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 12:08:04 2013 No.5944176 >>5944102 You haven't. I'm 100% sure. Post it here and we'll easily rip it apart

Anonymous Sat Aug 3 12:26:04 2013 No.5944190

>>5944134
>Disproval implies it doesn't hold for all n E N. If that is true, counterexample would be trivial to produce. That's why computers churn out enormous numbers and none of them violated Goldbach's.

by simple analysis of cardinality we can prove that transcendantal number exists, however creating transcendental number is a bit more tricky. a counter proof ( like any other proof ) isn't always constructive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 12:40:05 2013 No.5944202 >>5944154 >sega Hopeful I guess.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 12:59:35 2013 No.5944222 >>5944118 Holy shit if you can't use LaTeX don't publish math papers

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 13:01:03 2013 No.5944226 First email your proof you yourself. You can also give someone you know who would make a good witness a sealed envelope with your proof.

Anonymous Sat Aug 3 13:07:34 2013 No.5944232

If OP is still here...

Nobody will take you seriously, since you're an amateur making an unbelievable claim.

In the unlikely event that you actually have a legit proof, you should use a proof verifier such as Isabelle or Coq. Put it in there, then people will see you are correct and they will be flabbergasted.

>Where would I go to get solution checked

This shows you don't understand how science works. You are asking where you would go to waste some researchers' valuable time because you yourself are so dumb you don't even know how to check your own proof. If you actually did have a legit proof, you wouldn't be asking where to get errors pointed out (as you would know there are no errors) and would instead be asking which journal would be most prestigious once you've coded your proof into the above-mentioned proof verifier.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 13:12:04 2013 No.5944234 >>5944222 God it's hideous. I wonder how much time he wasted to format that piece of shit?

Anonymous Sat Aug 3 13:15:03 2013 No.5944238

>>5944102
>I have a weird feeling that everybody who's into math tried to solve it, at least once

Nope.jpg

That would be extremely untrue. Probably less than 1% of mathematicians have actually rolled up their sleeves and made a concerted effort on Goldbach's conjecture. It's not just that it's hard, it's also that it's mostly trivia: like FLT, Goldbach's itself is pretty much useless, and if/when it does get solved, the tools developed to solve it will be more important than the theorem itself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 13:21:34 2013 No.5944244 >>5944118 >http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0129 >4 × 1018 PIG DISGUSTING

>>	sMk !ArcH9WpopA Sat Aug 3 13:23:34 2013 No.5944246 >>5944234 I appreciate people submitting their work to the public domain, but holy shit would you look at this http://vixra.org/pdf/1108.0025v1.pdf

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 13:25:03 2013 No.5944247 >>5944246 What the fuck am I looking at ..?

Anonymous Sat Aug 3 13:28:04 2013 No.5944249

>>5944232
> If you actually did have a legit proof, you wouldn't be asking where to get errors pointed out (as you would know there are no errors) and would instead be asking which journal would be most prestigious
Lol, this is the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Even the most talented mathematicians make mistakes once in a while. It always makes sense to get somebody else to take a look at your work first, before it gets published. Why else do you think peer review exists?

In any case, if an amateur is to have any chance of getting into a reputable journal with a fantastical claim such as the proof or disproof of the Goldback conjecture, he would likely need the support of a reputable professor or other mathematician for then to even consider it (consider how many crackpots probably try to do this every day...)

On the other hand, I highly doubt OP's proof is correct :P

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 13:28:33 2013 No.5944250 >>5944118 >MS Word pdf >Perhaps, this prediction is unnecessary. If Goldbach conjecture is really true, why is even number 2 excluded from conjecture? It’s unreasonable Top troll 10/10

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 13:30:04 2013 No.5944255 >>5944246 What the actual fuck. Did he create that in Wordpad or something?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 13:30:05 2013 No.5944254 File: 86 KB, 602x533, 1325181190987.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5944246 >dat mspaint typesetting

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 13:31:04 2013 No.5944257 Do you have any idea how easy it is to make a claim that is incredibly difficult to prove? Out of the millions of useless off-the-cuff conjectures out there, what makes Goldbach's special? >conjecture: "P, prove me wrong."

>>	sMk !ArcH9WpopA Sat Aug 3 13:32:04 2013 No.5944260 >>5944247 http://vixra.org/pdf/1301.0097v1.pdf top lel

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 13:32:34 2013 No.5944262 File: 36 KB, 550x659, SCIENCEe.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5944246 pffffffffahahahah how do you find those?

Anonymous Sat Aug 3 13:37:04 2013 No.5944267

>>5944249
1. You do not understand how peer review works in math. The main point of peer review in high-tier math journals is to determine interestingness, novelty, etc. Although peer reviewers are expected to do some correctness checking, that is not their purpose---it's considered atrociously bad form to submit a paper whose correctness you yourself doubt. (When errors are discovered, it's something the author didn't foresee. It's not a case of the author asking, "Can you check whether this idea works?")

2. No. Support of a reputable professor might be sufficient (to get the peer review process started), but not necessary. Get an automated proof-checker to give your Goldbachs proof a thumbs up and you're pretty much guaranteed publication.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 13:39:04 2013 No.5944270 >>5944257 You're correct. The answer to your question is, Goldbach's is special for social reasons.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 13:41:04 2013 No.5944271 Someone should copy this whole thread into MS Word, convert it to PDF, and send it to xivra

>>	sMk !ArcH9WpopA Sat Aug 3 13:41:33 2013 No.5944272 I'm convinced some of the content submitted here is a joke. There's just no way. http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0108v1.pdf http://vixra.org/pdf/1304.0040v1.pdf http://vixra.org/pdf/1212.0137v1.pdf

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 13:43:33 2013 No.5944274 >>5944272 >http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0108v1.pdf >Quahtm Physics deep stuff

Anonymous Sat Aug 3 13:44:34 2013 No.5944276

>>5944232
>>Where would I go to get solution checked

>This shows you don't understand how science works.

OP here, that's funny because that's exactly how science works. I give my work to somebody else who'd hate to see it work and they try to fuck it up. That's peer review in a nutshell.
I'm claiming I have a proof, I don't however claim that it is correct. I'm curious as to where have I fucked up, I'm not as stupid as to think I found something people have missed for 300 years.

>>5944238
It was a guess that resulted from my own fascination with the problem. I suppose not that many people find it as fascinating as I do.

>>5944249
Thanks.
>On the other hand, I highly doubt OP's proof is correct :P
So do I. But what part is incorrect?

>>5944257
For me it's the fact that it seemed quite trivial at first, but then I found out that it resisted lvl:99 math wizards for 300 years.

>>5944272
Well that's the price you have to pay when everybody can submit.
>The Answers to the Two Millennium Prize Problems By Andrew M. Nassif
>3/5 pages are screenshots of wolfram alpha
Damn.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 13:46:05 2013 No.5944278 >>5944267 ... Are you telling me that automated proof checkers are now capable of determining the correctness of ANY proof??

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 13:48:04 2013 No.5944280 >>5944278 yes, but the proof has to be coded in such a way they can parse it, and that is very tedious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabelle_(proof_assistant) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 13:49:03 2013 No.5944282 >>5944280 I have no fucking idea how would I prove anything in this shit. Is this really used that much?

>>	sMk !ArcH9WpopA Sat Aug 3 13:51:05 2013 No.5944284 File: 5 KB, 197x36, bazinga.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] http://vixra.org/pdf/1211.0017v1.pdf >Big Bang Theory is therefore hypothesized to be a designer meme used to destroy science and rational thought.

Anonymous Sat Aug 3 13:52:03 2013 No.5944286

>>5944276
>OP here, that's funny because that's exactly how science works. I give my work to somebody else who'd hate to see it work and they try to fuck it up.

No. You are wrong. That is not how it works in math.

1. If you are obviously a crank, your paper will never GO to peer review unless you submit it to a really shit-tier journal. The editor will send it back to you with a form letter that has been sent to thousands of others like you. Sending your paper to peer review would be a waste of everyone's time, including your own since you're probably too dumb to understand any comments a real mathematician would make on it anyway.

2. Nobody would "hate to see it work". Everyone would love to see it work.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 13:52:04 2013 No.5944288 >>5944282 It's not used much, but it provides a solution to OP's dilemma, in the unlikely event that an amateur really does have a proof of something like Goldbach's conjecture.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 13:52:34 2013 No.5944287 >>5944118 >If Goldbach conjecture is really true, why is even number 2 excluded from conjecture? It’s unreasonable >unreasonable lol I wonder what it's like to be this much of a crazy person. Maybe OP can tell us

Anonymous Sat Aug 3 13:53:04 2013 No.5944289

>>5944267
Anyways, if this is actually the case, you're basically telling me that peer review in math no longer works in the same way as peer review in any other field (physics, engineering of various flavors, chemistry, biology, etc), where one of the primary goals is to determine if the paper is correct.

Anonymous Sat Aug 3 13:58:04 2013 No.5944297

>>5944289
correctness is necessary but it is very far from sufficient, and the peer review process is designed accordingly. faced with a serious math paper, a high-tier peer reviewer's main duty is to determine whether it's original, whether it's interesting, whether it warrants publication in the high-prestige journal. If the paper is factually wrong, that's a very massive failure on the author's part. It wouldn't take many instances of that before you're (unofficially of course) a very unwelcome name anywhere in math

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 14:00:03 2013 No.5944300 math stack would be your best place with all the info you gave.

Anonymous Sat Aug 3 14:03:04 2013 No.5944304

>>5944286
Well since I'm obviously that dumb, I don't think it would take a lot of big math words to point out where I'm wrong.
>2. Nobody would "hate to see it work".
You can't deny that hate is a pretty good motivation though.

>>5944287
Don't think I'm quite that high yet. For the billionth time, I don't claim that it's correct and I'm asking where do I go to get the very likely error pointed out. Christ.

>>5944288
I'm definitely not that convinced I'm right as to learn an entire new language to prove myself wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 14:05:33 2013 No.5944307 >>5944297 Yes, see, for example, http://mathoverflow.net/questions/46251/submission-of-a-paper-with-a-serious-error-to-a-good-journal Also: Some conjecture that as many as 1/3 of all math papers contain errors.

Anonymous Sat Aug 3 14:06:33 2013 No.5944311

>>5944304
Hate is a terrible motivation.

You're assuming the editor gives YOU the benefit of the doubt, which would mean that your paranoid-delusional "hater" has to go above-and-beyond to point out flaws and cut your work apart.

It's the opposite. Your reviewer has the benefit of the doubt. If he actually hates you, he can simply send in a one-line review, "This work is garbage and unworthy of the Journal of Math", and bang, you're dead

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 14:12:03 2013 No.5944317 >>5944307 Dear god... it does seem like it might be a good idea for math peer review to focus a bit more on correctness...

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 14:13:03 2013 No.5944318 >>5944289 lolwut? What are you imagining exactly? That reviewers redo the experiments and simulations? That's nit how it works.

Anonymous Sat Aug 3 14:17:03 2013 No.5944320

>>5944317
Correctness is the job of the author and of anyone who uses the paper's results as a key step in results of their own (i.e., vet it before you cite it). It's also the job of the peer reviewer but it's acknowledged that the reviewer often overlooks things. This is because otherwise, no science would ever get done, as every last scientist would be caught up in endless proofreading forever. Finally, in cases where absolute assurance of correctness is desired, there is proof verification software.

Anonymous Sat Aug 3 14:19:04 2013 No.5944322

>>5944318
this. (lol)

"Dear Author,
Sorry that it took the journal so long to review your submission, `Report on the Results of the Large Hadron Collider'. It took us a very long time to get our government to give us the money to buy our own Large Hadron Collider in order to make sure your results were correct."

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 14:21:03 2013 No.5944325 >>5944320 Until you run your software on a Pentium P5.

Anonymous Sat Aug 3 14:22:33 2013 No.5944327

>>5944318
Are you retarded? Obviously they aren't going to redo the actual simulations or experiments!! The responsibility of the peer reviewer is to determine if any theory included in the paper is correct, ensure that the experiment was carried out correctly (assuming the author is telling the truth), and determine whether the experimental or simulation results are sufficiently strong to justify the conclusions made by the authors.

Peer reviewers are also tasked with the job of determining whether a paper is sufficiently novel and groundbreaking to justify publication in the journal, but that's another story.

Anonymous Sat Aug 3 14:23:04 2013 No.5944328

>>5944325
Good thing we have this wonderful internet thingy so we can share the proofs with each other so we don't have to rely on just our own machine.

And here, let me help you with a shortcut to where you're heading with your line of reasoning: You may be a brain in a vat, and there's no way for you to confirm or deny this, therefore it's impossible to know anything with certainty, yadda yadda yadda

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 14:24:03 2013 No.5944335 >>5944328 Let's just hope that the source code has been properly reviewed.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 14:38:03 2013 No.5944366 this doesnt look that bad http://vixra.org/pdf/1307.0162v1.pdf

Anonymous Sat Aug 3 16:53:04 2013 No.5944589

>>5944318
Yes, as a matter of fact independent researchers sometimes redo the experiment or create follow-up studies. That's how peer review works. Otherwise people can bullshit whatever they want into the data set, which they do much more than you think. They get found out after somebody decides to check it more closely.
Regarding math peer review, it's fucking same. Why do you think it took years before Perelman was acknowledged as a solver of Poincare conjecture? You think they said "sheeit son, that's cool, you won" and trusted him that the proof is true?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 17:09:04 2013 No.5944648 >>5944589 lol, 9 times out of ten the experiment cant be reproduced anyhow outside of the same lab..

Anonymous Sat Aug 3 17:27:04 2013 No.5944709

>>5944648
Math can. Or what, you are out of pencil and paper?
Biology can. If doing this and this results in cloning an organism, there are people who want to try that.
LHC is one of few examples and even some of its earlier experiments were re-done with other particle colliders. Current experiments will also be independently confirmed when somebody builds another particle collider capable of it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 17:52:33 2013 No.5944756 >>5944709 Exact replications are extremely rare in biology and medicine

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 18:05:04 2013 No.5944782 I always wondered if there was some 40 year old guy somewhere in Oregon sitting on the proofs to tons of theorems.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 19:10:34 2013 No.5944925 File: 66 KB, 540x544, wtf-am-i-reading .jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5944118 >But when one odd number trends to infinity, it is only an odd composite number, not a prime.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 19:19:35 2013 No.5944943 File: 86 KB, 299x288, cheatmegoofy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5944118 Wait, so first he claims to disprove Goldbach because "high odd numbers usually aren't prime" and then "predicts" that Bertrand's Postulate is false?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 19:24:35 2013 No.5944949 Why do people refuse to review his solutions? The guy seems to be reasonable. http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0030v2.pdf Can math journals really ignore one person's attempt because he is unknown? what the hell.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 19:49:35 2013 No.5945014 >>5944949 Holy dick shit the font makes me want to dig my eyes out with a rusty spoon. >that ridiculous "o"

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 19:51:05 2013 No.5945022 >>5944943 Apparently if you go far enough, there aren't any more prime numbers. Somebody should let Euclid know.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 20:00:35 2013 No.5945051 >>5944114 If you want someone to tell you why your proof is wrong, try http://math.stackexchange.com/

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 20:01:05 2013 No.5945052 >>5944949 >Why do people refuse to review his solutions? Because of his font choice. Kids, if you want to be takes seriously never use shitty fonts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 20:11:35 2013 No.5945073 http://vixra.org/author/andrew_nassif Enjoy the autism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 20:31:05 2013 No.5945119 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zecharia_Sitchin Can we all take a moment to look at this man, and the idea of what he proposes (that is believed religously by many)

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 21:56:36 2013 No.5945294 >>5944102 Perhaps restate the question. Where could someone submit a claim, crackpot or otherwise, where it would be guaranteed timestamped and attached to his name, should a miracle occur and it be correct?

Anonymous Sat Aug 3 22:06:37 2013 No.5945310

What you should do is submit it as a series of small articles to peer-reviewed journals. Use the first few papers to establish your basic results, and then combine those in your final one to show the main result. This will break it down into manageable parts for reviewers, and they'll be able to see if you're worth investing time in reading when you do come out with your final paper.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 3 22:11:36 2013 No.5945321 >>5944949 This reads more like a high school book report than a scientific article

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 4 05:43:35 2013 No.5945777 >>5945119 Who the fuck is this faggot?

>>	Marshall Bill of the NSA Sun Aug 4 22:44:44 2013 No.5947458 >>5944284 sMk, I've been meaning to ask you. What made you choose that particular tripcode?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 04:27:49 2013 No.5947886 >>5947458 Maybe he's a fellow archer.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 04:56:52 2013 No.5947907 >>5944134 Not all proofs are constructive, even in finite math like combinatorics. See the probabilistic method in graph theory.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 05:36:20 2013 No.5947938 Dude if you solve it don't tell anyone, just crack every single bank encryption system in the world and fucking get loaded.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 07:11:49 2013 No.5948005 >>5947938 >probabilistic method This seems interesting. >>5947938 Goldbach's doesn't have anything to do with code cracking.

Anonymous Mon Aug 5 07:34:19 2013 No.5948013
File: 39 KB, 571x480, kek.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

http://www.amazon.com/Ideas-Geniuses-Germain-Dr-Andrew-Nassif/dp/1482749130
>Andrew Magdy Kamal is a genius with an IQ average of 231.734. Nasir Germain is also gifted with an IQ average of 195. These two physics specialist are awnsering some of the biggest questions the world have ever known.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 07:49:50 2013 No.5948023 >>5948013 He's seriously top kek material. http://vixra.org/author/andrew_nassif

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 07:59:50 2013 No.5948034 >>5948005 Oh I'm sorry I thought bank encryption systems were heavily reliant on the fact that prime numbers cannot be estimated. durr.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 08:18:19 2013 No.5948044 >>5948034 Again, you illiterate retard, Goldbach's conjecture doesn't have to do anything to do with factoring of large numbers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 08:20:19 2013 No.5948045 >>5948023 Oh god some of these submissions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 08:30:20 2013 No.5948054 >>5948045 I'm not even sure if it's troll or someone hyperautistic. >We look at atomic accelerators in labs as a major source to absorb Quantum acceleration of energy and particles.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 09:20:51 2013 No.5948101 I'm curious, has any valid or important file been submitted to vixra or is it a crackpot-only crackpot site?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 09:20:51 2013 No.5948102 >>5948054 http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0076 My favourite so far. It's hard to tell, I'd put my money on some sort of hyperautist and/or retard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 09:29:19 2013 No.5948112 >>5948102 And I'm learning latex here like a fucking retard. I should just post scans of my scribble-paper.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 09:32:20 2013 No.5948117 >>5948112 >Learning latex >Not just posting screenshots of word documents >WhatAChump.jpg The book posted here >>5948013 is even better.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 09:34:20 2013 No.5948121 >>5948023 >Nibiru HERE WE GO

Anonymous Mon Aug 5 09:38:20 2013 No.5948127

>>5948117
>By Saran Nepali (Washington, USA) - See all my reviews
>This review is from: The Ideas of Geniuses Nasir Germain and Dr.Andrew Nassif (Paperback)
>This is a great book made by a brilliant person.
>One of Andrew Magdy Kamal's best book and really brought up my attention. This is really ideas of a revolutionary.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 09:47:50 2013 No.5948135 http://vixra.org/pdf/1307.0168v1.pdf

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 09:59:50 2013 No.5948143 >>5948127 >By Jessie Smith on April 3, 2013 >Best science book ever, I really enjoyed this book and had a fun time reading it to my students, mentors, and colleagues. >See all my reviews >Astral Projection: The Guide For Beginners

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 10:01:49 2013 No.5948147 >>5948101 Could somebody answer this?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 10:07:19 2013 No.5948152 >>5948013 >Nasir Germain It's just some kid. The other guy's probably too. http://recordsetter.com/world-record/youngest-person-make-scientific-journal-for-physics/27178#contentsection

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 10:15:50 2013 No.5948162 Quick question, if the twin prime conjecture is proven, is this also proven? I mean, all the even numbers _seem_ to able to be expressed by twin primes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 10:16:19 2013 No.5948163 >>5948152 Lel. Was it Fermi that wrote an university application when he was 19 that was deemed worthy of PhD?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 10:50:49 2013 No.5948195 File: 27 KB, 367x451, faggot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5948152 >denied

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 11:00:49 2013 No.5948208 >>5948101 From what I've seen - crackpot only

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 11:03:20 2013 No.5948216 >>5948208 Any non-crackpot place people can submit shit to?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 11:31:19 2013 No.5948246 File: 80 KB, 1025x664, Untitled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5948013 what what the actual fuck is this actually being sold as a printed paperback fucking book or am i just going crazy

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 11:51:49 2013 No.5948281 File: 562 KB, 960x1003, Untitled 2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5948246 >wat

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 11:53:19 2013 No.5948286 >>5948216 http://arxiv.org/ Journals on the respective topic

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 11:56:20 2013 No.5948290 >>5948023 http://vixra.org/abs/1302.0061 >dat comment

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 12:06:52 2013 No.5948307 >>5948290 >Comic sans >COMIC SANS

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 12:12:20 2013 No.5948320 >>5948286 Only select few people can contribute to arxiv.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 12:45:21 2013 No.5948371 File: 308 KB, 600x460, ATLAS_Higgs-CERN-seminar-2012-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5948307 >comic sans >science pick two

>>	sage sage Mon Aug 5 12:54:20 2013 No.5948387 >>5944118 >Times New Roman >Shitty Word pdf >Formulas wrote with text >4 x 1018 >unreasonable I hope the spirits of Newton, Archimedes and Gauss will haunt you for the rest of your eternity.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 13:14:51 2013 No.5948422 File: 33 KB, 738x411, pvnp.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5944272 >The Answers to the Two Millennium Prize Problems By Andrew M. Nassif P=NP solved. N=1 My fucking sides.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 13:49:49 2013 No.5948499 >>5948387 >Newton, Archimedes and Gauss >LaTeX They should suck based Knuth's knuth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 13:49:49 2013 No.5948501 >>5948422 That's why I suspect he's a ruseman.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 13:51:50 2013 No.5948504 >>5948501 It's just a self-inflated kid. >>5948152

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 13:51:50 2013 No.5948505 >>5948246 >>5948281 Is... is the "other guy" his imaginary fried?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 17:06:25 2013 No.5948993 OP here, my paper is almost done. I'll be uploading most likely in the next few hours. Are you ready?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 17:27:24 2013 No.5949075 Guys, Nassif just disproved Einstein and proved the existence of God in the same paragraph. http://vixra.org/abs/1308.0024

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 18:20:17 2013 No.5949230 >>5948993 Well?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 19:41:46 2013 No.5949405 >>5949230 Paper submitted to vixra.org, waiting for confirmation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 19:46:17 2013 No.5949421 >>5949075 >Einstein’s theory is based on the idea that space is curved, when it obviously isn’t.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 19:53:46 2013 No.5949437 >>5949075 10/10

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 19:55:48 2013 No.5949444 >>5949075 >People who agree with this case include Jacob Barnett and astronomer Thomas Scott Zolotor. >Jacob Barnett

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 20:56:46 2013 No.5949529 >>5945022 He does. http://vixra.org/pdf/1304.0020v4.pdf

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 21:23:47 2013 No.5949566 OP's Paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1307.0104v1.pdf

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 21:27:47 2013 No.5949572 >>5949566 I wish every proof ended with "THERE'S THE PROOF"

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 22:00:16 2013 No.5949602 >>5949566 I expected better than the usual "infinity means everything happens!" troll. Hopefully this is not really OP's.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 22:19:19 2013 No.5949635 >>5949602 His arguments are just too sophisticated for the plebeian mind. Get lost.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 5 22:31:47 2013 No.5949655 Can't this just be proved by saying all primes must be odd, and the sum of 2 odds is always even? Like how can this be tough?

Anonymous Tue Aug 6 00:18:48 2013 No.5949829

No. That argument does not show that you can build EVERY even number by adding two primes. It says nothing about the odd composites either.

Sure when you add two odd numbers you get an even, but now you have to guarantee that when you pick ANY number, you can find two primes to add up to it.

Also not all primes are odd. Take for example, 2.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 6 00:29:16 2013 No.5949849 How are theorems usually proved? Is it existing theorems or properties of numbers? What kind of feilds would you have to study to get an idea of what might be used to solve this? Sorry, just curious

Anonymous Tue Aug 6 02:18:47 2013 No.5949951

>>5949566
Not OP though. I'll post the link when it's published.

>>5949655
Problem is showing that there are always a pair of odd numbers that are also prime.

>>5949849
Number theory. Overall, the more math you know, the more tools you have to prove something.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 6 20:12:17 2013 No.5951370 http://vixra.org/abs/1308.0032

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 6 20:29:48 2013 No.5951393 >>5951370 OP?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 6 20:36:48 2013 No.5951400 >>5951393 Recently uploaded and it's about Goldbach's.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 6 20:41:17 2013 No.5951407 >>5951370 Well, million dollars to you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 6 23:44:48 2013 No.5951695 I uploaded a paper on triple integrals a few days ago under Functional Analysis and now I get a blank page every time I try to visit the papers under that topic. Did I get pseudo-banned?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 7 03:09:18 2013 No.5952097 >>5951695 Most likely not. Try reuploading or submitting an updated version if the pdf itself is fucked.

Anonymous Wed Aug 7 03:37:18 2013 No.5952138

I'm not genius mathematician, but I feel like you wouldn't be able to prove Goldbach's conjecture until you found a general formula for finding all primes.
If we had such a formula, though, proving this particular conjecture would probably be one of the less significant things to come out of it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 7 03:55:18 2013 No.5952167 >>5952138 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime-counting_function

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 7 11:36:26 2013 No.5952588 >>5952097 I mean I get a blank page whenever I click the category itself, not my paper. Don't even know if it was accepted.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 7 12:14:53 2013 No.5952631 >>5952588 Did you reach it using the link they sent you in the mail? Try emailing them to see what's up with that. If it's on the listing of articles, it's accepted.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math