Re: JSH: Prime gap equation consequences

On 24/07/2010 21:31, JSH wrote:
You're welcome again!

:-) :-) :-)

And the answer here is, no, it's the correlation that matters.

Now ponder that for a while, understand why I don't worry a lot about
a claim of a probabilistic equation supposedly often being about 12%
off, and if necessary brush up on probability and statistics, which I
think you really should do.

I'm very familiar with the concept of experimental error, ant the
statistical processing thereof. This requires a formal study of
statistics, albeit not at the level of a major as degree level.

A consistent 12% is cause for concern, and needs to be dealt with,

No. That's just not correct!

Please explain (in detail). The stuff that MichaelW pointed out is the
same equation as yours, except for the constant 1.12... factor. Please
explain why that equation matches actual data much better than yours does (or /vice versa/?).

and posters here (MichaelW and Penny Hassett) have both pointed out
papers that explain this 12%. They have shown that apart from this
12%, your equation is correct, by showing it in a paper.

Mathematics is a HUGE subject. No one can be an expert on it all.

Goes without saying. Thats why folks get together in discussion groups.
If I get something wrong, there is usually someone here who can help me
get it right.

But you can't just think you can read posts on Usenet and get a firm
grasp of something and then just refer back to other posters when
called on your error.

No, but I consider the material referred to in
persuasive, in support of MichaelW having accurately displayed the
12% discrepancy and provides a reference to a paper that contains
an equation very similar to yours, except for the 12% correction.

Penny Hassett concurs, I do believe.

Quite simply, you are wrong here. Worse, you are wrong in a way that
shows a very dismal lack of understanding of basic probability and

Please check the above papers. The most relevant one is published by
The Mathematical Association of America. These are not idiots.

And you are insistent in your error.

I am insistent that your 12% error is unaccounted for. So is MichaelW. Apart from the constant factor, your equation is correct.

I am a world figure for a reason.

You are not.

Cut the hubris please. Hubris does not add to the debate, it
diminishes it.

There is no safety net for you here.

Sorry, yet again. If apologies help you then fine. But you cannot
will probability and statistics into something it's not.

There is not that power in the world, and there shouldn't be.

You've described a lot of your work as "crap crap crap". Please do due diligence on this one. The evidence is there. All you need to do is
check it.

I accept your apology as sincere, but please don't turn it round into
a bargaining commodity; that removes its sincerity. As yet, that hasn't
happened; please keep it that way.

Mark "No Nickname" Murray
Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.