Re: JSH: Crowd mentality, consensus, and fraud
- From: "Tim Peters" <tim.one@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 21:19:30 -0400
[Tim Peters, on JSH's prime-counting formula]
....Assuming you know how the sieve of Eratosthenses (SOE) works, it's
almost straightforward to derive from reasoning about how that works.
Here's a fat sketch; I'll leave it to James to write it in a
mechanically-verifiable form ;-).
Finally, obscure it by picking odd names, by "expanding" pi(k) to S(k,
floor(sqrt(k))) everywhere, and by leaving out the floor functions.
[David C. Ullrich]
Heh - I was curious whether you'd include these crucial last steps.
I confess it was tempting to leave them out :-) But without them, you can't
derive his forumla verbatim, and the lad tends to be a bit literal-minded
when it suits his belief that everyone lies about his work.
Then, as an exercise, use that to disprove the Riemann hypothesis :-)
Does it? I'd heard that it settled RH, but I don't recall hearing
whether it showed RH was true or false.
AFAICT, he didn't claim to _know_ one way or the other, and blames
mathematicians for leaving it dangling despite that he's shown them that RH
is "probably false":
From: jstevh@xxxxxxx
Newsgroups: alt.math.undergrad,alt.math,sci.math
Subject: JSH: Consistency check, Riemann Hypothesis
Date: 2 Apr 2006 11:16:08 -0700
Message-ID: <1144001767.970562.132180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
...
So what does this have to do with the Riemann Hypothesis?
Well, remember I emphasized that the partial difference equation is
specially constrained, as you have to force it to behave and give a
count of prime numbers, but if you don't constrain it, get this, it's
slightly off.
It's just slightly different from the prime count.
It has a partial differential equation analog which is close to the
partial difference equation, unconstrained.
Any of you getting it yet?
My find indicates the reason for why the prime distribution is close
to continuous functions, but also tells why it's not exact: there's
this special constraint to the partial difference equation that forces
an exact count.
So, it indicates that the Riemann Hyothesis is probably false.
However, standard mainstream mathematical belief is that the Riemann
Hypothesis is true.
Now going from the indication that I have that it's false to proof
could take who knows what effort, but mathematicians will not make
the effort.
...
So, best I can make out, James got it into his head that mathematicians
believe RH is true, and therefore was irresistably inclined to believe that
his own research suggests it's false. At least that makes more sense than
the logic above ;-)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: JSH: Crowd mentality, consensus, and fraud
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: JSH: Crowd mentality, consensus, and fraud
- References:
- JSH: Crowd mentality, consensus, and fraud
- From: jstevh
- Re: Crowd mentality, consensus, and fraud
- From: Juke
- Re: Crowd mentality, consensus, and fraud
- From: Tim Smith
- Re: Crowd mentality, consensus, and fraud
- From: Rick Decker
- Re: Crowd mentality, consensus, and fraud
- From: Afropop@xxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Crowd mentality, consensus, and fraud
- From: Tim Peters
- Re: Crowd mentality, consensus, and fraud
- From: David C . Ullrich
- JSH: Crowd mentality, consensus, and fraud
- Prev by Date: Help: A random process modelling
- Next by Date: Definition of a Maximal Independent Set -> Starting from a Dominating Set
- Previous by thread: Re: Crowd mentality, consensus, and fraud
- Next by thread: Re: JSH: Crowd mentality, consensus, and fraud
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|