Number Theorists are a bunch of lightweights

[Anonymous No.8559172]

Time for a /sci/ story, bois.

>Be me
>Finish my freshman year in mathematics, great grades
>Decide I am going to prove the goldbach conjecture in my summer time
>Find a new way of approaching the problem
>Start working
>Get distracted
>Start fantasizing about going on national television to talk about my proof and becoming famous, etc.
>Go back to work
>All the "manual labor" is done, time to get some theorems
>Google "theorems about prime numbers"
>A whole wikipedia list of theorems
>Read all of them
>None of them strong enough to help me
>Actually, all those theorems are really fucking weak. They barely say anything.

Why are number theorists such a bunch of light weights? Holy fuck. Those theorems are SO fucking weak.

>Decide number theorists are gay
>Forget their theorems
>Going to prove this through sheer force of will, using nothing but my own work
>Keep fantasizing about getting invited to a top uni to finish my degree and then get 50 PhDs
>Keep working
>Realize Goldbach conjecture is too hard to prove by sheer force of will. Decide to make a weaker conjecture related to my method
>Try to prove it
>My weaker conjecture is too strong, get an EVEN weaker conjecture and try to prove that
>Nothing
>Finally realize my method is potentially flawed and I need to look for another direction
>Go back to wikipedia page about prime numbers, give it another look
>NOTHING
>Gay weak ass theorems
>Decide I still need to prove it from scratch, just need another direction

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK.

3000 years of number theory for this shit.

>Uh, uhhh there is at least 1 prime number between n and 2n

NO FUCKING SHIT MOTHERFUCKKKEERRRRRRR. YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING WITH THAT.

Seriously number theorists, what a fucking gay field. Once I prove the goldbach conjecture I'm moving to algebra because I don't want to be associated with faggots.

[Anonymous No.8559207]

I literally can't believe this isn't bait
>number theorists are bad at math
>all their proofs are weak
>I also can't prove things
>Things I expected to be easy are hard, therefore the people who do them are stupid
here's your reply, now please kys

[Anonymous No.8559217]

>>8559172
>freshman trying to go way above their domain
>realise it's way harder than it "should" be

I applaud your efforts, but really, ambition can only do so much.

[Anonymous No.8559225]

>>8559207
>>I also can't prove things

I can't prove things because I am standing on their shoulders but they happen to also be midgets.

Anyways, the theorems we know about prime numbers are legitimately very vague. They barely say anything useful, specially when you want to prove something very concrete. It doesn't help that every theorem comes with a disclaimer that says:

>IN AVERAGE
>Only valid for "sufficientely large N". How large? idk
>THERE EXISTS some constant so that this is true. What constant is it? Dooooon't look at me ;^)

>>8559217
Nah man I got this. I just got to put all of my power into this.

[Anonymous No.8559253]

>>8559225
Why don't you run some field tests on these theorems to find said constants, said N, etc ? That's actual research.

[Anonymous No.8559411]

>>8559225
Those are all statements about asymptomatic behavior. Are you unfamiliar with that?

[Anonymous No.8559424]

Soon you'll realize that there were probably a bunch of dudes who did exactly what you have, only to realize the same constraints...

Then they realized if you can't prove with number theory because its so weak, then you must go deeper in the belly of the number theory beast.

Only to realize the true monster is in that belly.....

[Anonymous No.8559427]

>>8559172
>it's a "freshman math major thinks he can prove Goldbach's conjecture easy-peezy" episode

Just because number theory isn't as esoteric as your fancy differential geometry doesn't mean it isn't hard

[Anonymous No.8559502]

>>8559411
I know what they are. I said, I did my research. I wouldn't be claiming that number theory is weak if I didn't know.

>>8559424
>Only to realize the true monster is in that belly.....

>ULTRAFINITISM
>MULTISETS
>PRIMIVITE NATURAL NUMBERS
>MARKS
>ANTI MARKS

But man, Wildberger disproved the goldbach conjecture? Who else has different axioms. I need some good axioms to prove the goldbach conjecture.No faggoty axioms like ZFC will do.

>>8559427
>Just because number theory isn't as esoteric as your fancy differential geometry doesn't mean it isn't hard

In differential geometry there are things that can be said about higher dimensional curves.

In number theory we don't even have a closed form equation for the nth prime.

[Anonymous No.8559515]

>>8559502
Wilderberger just proved that Mathematica was imaginary, which everyone already knew, and why they are ignoring him.

Go fuck shit up, but it'll take you a while to find a trail that hadn't been blazed yet, because most of the trails that needed reblazing have already been found with the information era as it is

[Anonymous No.8559523]

>>8559502
Here's an axiom, I call it the goldbach axiom
The goldbach conjecture is true
Therefore the goldbach conjecture is true
QED
"Strong" enough for you, freshman piece of shit?

[Anonymous No.8559569]

>>8559523
>"Strong" enough for you, freshman piece of shit?

Wow, someone is salty their PhD advisor just rejected their dissertation. Are you maaad? Are you #triggered?

Triggered that people still have the desire to do great mathematics? That desire that you lost years ago when you realized you were shit and would never amount to anything? Knowing you would just prove lemmas nobody cared about in fringe fields?

Fortunately for me, I still haven't found out if I am a retard or not. You... already know it. You know you will never be a big mathematician.

Go back to contemplating suicide you failed academic.

[Anonymous No.8559710]

>>8559502
> >MARKS
> >ANTI MARKS
Could you hook a nigga up, mane?
What tf are marks and anti marks?
I looked them up and couldn't find anything
Sounds interesting

[Anonymous No.8559726]

>>8559710
Well, there is this guy called Wildberger who doesn't agree with the modern foundation of mathematics and he created his own

To start his foundation he states the fundamental dichotomy or the universe: There is either something or nothing.

That is, lets say that a mark is I (representative of a dash on a whiteboard)

Then that mark is a mathematical object that represents something. Then he says that you can collect marks in what he calls multisets, like for example:
[I] is a multiset with one mark
[III] is a multiset with 3 marks

Then he calls those multisets "primitive natural numbers". [IIIII] is the primitive natural 5 and it behaves like the usual number 5. So that is how he identifies number.

If you give him a multiset with marks then he will identify what number it represents by counting the marks.

Then after finishing up his construction of the naturals he moved on to the integers, which include negative numbers. Then he presented the "fundamental trichotomy of the universe": You can have something, nothing or anti-something. Anti something represented by anti marks.

Then lets say that an anti mark is /. Then you can also collect anti marks in multisets. For example, [///] is -3.

Then he uses anti marks to create the anti natural numbers and then the anti natural numbers, plus the natural numbers, plus 0 (represented as an empty multiset) make up the integers which one property:

I/ =

That is a complete equation. It basically reads: Something with anti something makes nothing.

Then you can add 5 + -3 like [IIIII] + [///]
= [IIIII///] but then the mark and anti mark that are "touching" cancel so
= [IIII//]
=[III/]
=[II] which is equal to two.

But I am honestly not doing it justice so if you want to hear from the big man himself then:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsO3C4s_QdY

To give you perspective, he uses these natural numbers to create what he calls "Big Number Theory".

[Anonymous No.8559902]

>>8559172
You're gonna need background in Langlands Program to solve this. Not only theorems involving prime numbers.

[Anonymous No.8559911]

get a life troll

[Anonymous No.8560014]

>>8559172

[Anonymous No.8560038]

>Finish my freshman year in mathematics, great grades
>Decide I am going to prove the goldbach conjecture in my summer time

[Anonymous No.8560150]

>>8559217
Fuck what a picture, really makes the old clockwork grind

[Anonymous No.8560205]

>>8559726
Damn, that's pretty interesting
Thanks dude

[Anonymous No.8560210]

>>8559172
Then prove better theorems you cuck.

[Anonymous No.8560211]

>>8559225
Prime numbers are hard yes.

[Anonymous No.8560228]

>>8559172
I think it's necessary to have both originality and groundedness to have genius, and you at least have these two traits. For what it's worth, I think you have the persistence to get at one of these meme thorns in mathematics. Have fun, good luck.

[Anonymous No.8560231]

>>8559225
>standing on the shoulders of midgets
i'm laughing hard anon, one of the best baits this year

[Anonymous No.8560243]

>>8559726
>invented a basic as fuck term rewriting system isomorphic to the integers

truly genius

[Anonymous No.8560247]

>>8559172
OP, join category theory master race, everything is so much comfier here. There is a type of monoidal category just waiting to have your name put on it.

The number theorists have to use our techniques to prove anything substantial anyways.

[Anonymous No.8560256]

>>8559172
ghe gehe ghe ghe gegeh gehe ghe ghe ghe geh

you are funny guy OP

[Anonymous No.8560402]

Learn about this "interuniversal teichmueller theory" :)