[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Goldbach's Conjecture (fwd)


Forwarded message:

> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 18:27:39 +0100
> From: Mok-Kong Shen <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Goldbach's Conjecture (fwd)

> Jim Choate wrote:
> 
> > What started this whole enquiry for me was the realization that the
> > multiplication identity axiom is related to the definition of a prime. Then
> > add on top of that the reason we exclude 1 is so we don't have to write
> > '...except for the prime 1' on the end of lots of number theory (re Richard
> > Feynman's comment during the Challenger Investigation). It was the
> > realization that if we go ahead and include 1 so the axioms are in line with
> > each other (and use our cut&paste feature for the '...1...') then perhaps it
> > would provide a more consistent base and just maybe some of the extant
> > problems in number theory might become solvable in other ways. My original

> If you 'define' 1 to be 'prime', you are 'defining' Goldbach's
> conjecture 'away'! 

Duh.

I'll give you a hint, more than that single problem goes away.


    ____________________________________________________________________
 
            Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want
            the right answers.

                                        Scully (X-Files)

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      [email protected]
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------