Re: Who thinks Goldbach's Conjecture is unprovable?

From: Izzie Boxen (iboxen_at_rogers.com)
Date: 10/11/04 

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:19:52 -0400

Luis A. Rodriguez wrote:
> cafeinst@msn.com (Craig Feinstein) wrote in message news:<b671fc3e.0409240933.76d8b04c@posting.google.com>...
>
>>I want to take an informal survey to find out what people believe:
>>1) Goldbach's Conjecture is possible to prove.
>>2) Golbach's Conjecture is impossible to prove but is nevertheless
>>true.
>>3) Goldbach's Conjecture is impossible to prove, because there is a
>>counterexample.
>>I am interested to hear any reasons for your beliefs.
>>Thank you,
>>Craig
>
>
> I'm inclined for the 2nd belief. I support the thesis that the
> Goldbach
> Conjecture is a probabilistic assertion disguised in an analytic
> language.
> Simply, it's very improbable that suming all the pairs of primes
> lesser than
> half an even number, then results that this number do not appear as a
> sum.
> Empirically, if S is the even number, then the times it will appear as
> a sum of two primes,is aproximately = S/(Log(S)*(Log(S)-1)).
>
> If that number is the mean of a Binomial Distribution, then it's very
> improbable that it can attain the frequency zero, (but not
> impossible).
> If we postulate that the Eratosthenes Sieve is equivalent to a chaotic
> process, then its easy to show that the Goldbach Conjectute is
> undemostrable.
But the Sieve of Eratosthenes has a wealth of relations and is far from
chaotic.
I. Boxen