To: nickcarraway
I can’t believe this guy published first. Now all my work on this will have been for nothing.
2 posted on
11/17/2022 3:42:40 PM PST by
ClearCase_guy
(We are already in a revolutionary period, and the Rule of Law means nothing. )
To: nickcarraway
This is so far beyond me...
3 posted on
11/17/2022 3:42:45 PM PST by
EEGator
To: nickcarraway
On page 83, about halfway down, he misstated an exponent. Complete fail.
4 posted on
11/17/2022 3:48:27 PM PST by
IncPen
("Inside of every progressive is a Totalitarian screaming to get out" ~ David Horowitz)
To: nickcarraway
Big deal. My cat Mr. Whiskers solved the Landau-Siegel zeros conjecture problem years ago. He just got too busy chasing his tail to publish it.
5 posted on
11/17/2022 3:49:06 PM PST by
Leaning Right
(The steal is real.)
To: nickcarraway
“may have proposed”
Shouldn’t the writer have determined that before writing the article? What a retard.
8 posted on
11/17/2022 3:59:26 PM PST by
TTFX
To: nickcarraway
Whatever numbers with exponents.
Subtract the number 1
Suddenly it is indivisible, and there is justice for all
9 posted on
11/17/2022 4:00:51 PM PST by
algore
To: nickcarraway
Now I can get some rest. I was awake all night trying to figure it out.
11 posted on
11/17/2022 4:10:34 PM PST by
I want the USA back
(Our news media isn't worth camel spit. Neither is the democrat party. H)
To: nickcarraway
… an infinite number of primes that differ by 2.
++++
Well they have to be odd so they can’t differ by 1. The same argument says they can’t differ by 3. Clearly that applies to 5, 7, 9, 11 … as well.
But there are a lot of primes. An infinite number I believe. So differing by 2 would seem to be relatively common at least as primes go. Seems likely there are an infinite number of them.
My more simple “proof”. 😎
12 posted on
11/17/2022 4:14:25 PM PST by
InterceptPoint
(Ted, you finally endorsed.)
To: nickcarraway
OK, what does this mean IRL, the advancement of crypto keys or in decoding?
13 posted on
11/17/2022 4:33:36 PM PST by
Chode
(there is no fall back position, there's no rally point, there is no LZ... we're on our own. #FJB)
To: nickcarraway
OK fine, but can he complete a Rubic’s cube in under 5 minutes?
14 posted on
11/17/2022 4:36:15 PM PST by
PGR88
To: nickcarraway
Wasn’t this a episode on Netflix?
To: nickcarraway
The problem with 111 page proofs, is how do you prove the proof is correct?
20 posted on
11/17/2022 5:09:22 PM PST by
SauronOfMordor
(The rot of all principle begins with a single compromise.)
To: nickcarraway
a very long proof, 111 pages Sum Ting Wong. Never seen a proof that long.
To: nickcarraway
24 posted on
11/17/2022 5:27:31 PM PST by
103198
(It's the metadata stupid...)
To: nickcarraway
See “Uncle Petrose and the Goldbach Conjecture”
The Goldbach Conjecture states that every even natural number greater than 2 is the sum of two primes.
Now prove it and collect your Nobel
27 posted on
11/17/2022 5:59:49 PM PST by
muir_redwoods
(Freedom isn't free, liberty isn't liberal and you'll never find anything Right on the Left)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson