Re: Primes: Randomness and Prime Twin Proof

Martin Winer wrote:
Counterexample: there is never a digit other than '3' in the infinite decimal
representation of 1/3.
No, not a counter example. We are certain there can be no other digit
that 3. Has nothing to do with probabilities.

Here's a point you're missing: we are certain of this because
we can *prove* it using non-probabilistic arguments regarding
the decimal expansion of 1/3. If we couldn't do that, how
would we know that we can't apply your probabilistic argument
to 1/3?

Putting the shoe on the other foot, consider how this applies
to your "proof" of the twin primes conjecture. You say that we
can apply probabilistic methods *there*, but how do you know
that there isn't some rule (one we simply don't know yet) that
contradicts this, in a similar (but less obvious) way as for 1/3?

Your proof is not complete until you can justify the reasoning
behind how you make this choice, between cases that can be
treated probabilistically and cases that cannot. I think you will
not find that an easy task.


You need to go back and rethink your assumptions.
'fraid not.

It's so refreshing to see such an open mind... especially in a
person so unfamiliar with a well-developed field of study.

.

Quantcast