Simon Davis proves existence of infinitely many Mersenne primes?
 

Hi,



I found this yesterday

[url]http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/evenperfect.pdf[/url]

Is this a proof that there are infinitely many Mersenne primes?

The PDF is almost 10 years old (24-Nov-2006)!

thanks

If somone can answer my question I'd be pleased . I'm not well enough to

understand it.

That PDF gives an impression of a person who wears a pince-nez and speaks in long sentences but periodically uses phrases like "this fact has a profound proctological significance" (instead of "practical"). Many long paragraphs look copied and pasted from other places and make no sense.

Take part 6 (page 15, reproduced below): e.g. it makes an argument that "g(n) is an integer [B]because [/B].... (formula 6.2)". It makes absolutely no sense. Then in the next line g(n) is used already in the [I]modular [/I]context (where its existence is obvious, because n [TEX]\eq[/TEX] 0 (mod n) )... And this science-look-alike copy-pastes are used all over, in a similar fashion.

[QUOTE=Batalov;436945]That PDF gives an impression of a person who wears a pince-nez and speaks in long sentences but periodically uses phrases like "this fact has a profound proctological significance" (instead of "practical"). Many long paragraphs look copied and pasted from other places and make no sense.

Take part 6 (page 15, reproduced below): e.g. it makes an argument that "g(n) is an integer [B]because [/B].... (formula 6.2)". It makes absolutely no sense. Then in the next line g(n) is used already in the [I]modular [/I]context (where its existence is obvious, because n [TEX]\eq[/TEX] 0 (mod n) )... And this science-look-alike copy-pastes are used all over, in a similar fashion.[/QUOTE]

We'll take that as a NO then :grin:

[I]Fun fact[/I]: two days ago I have been well within 20 or so meters from that article's supplied address (not deliberately, I just was there on other chores).
It is of course [SPOILER] the post office. PO Box 13595... I have not looked for it obviously, I was at [I][B]the[/B][/I] post office and CVS pharmacy ...and got sushi at Whole Foods, too[/SPOILER]. :rolleyes:

My feelings too. It looks very crankish and mixes a lot of subjects, without connection, but "sounding good", like "geometric representation" of mersenne numbers (?!), trigonometry, pittagorean triplets, Riemann surface, Dirac zero modes, Ramond sectors, inhomogenuous congruence subgroup, Chebyshev polynomials of different kinds, Lagrange interpolations, Lucas and Lehmer series (!?), Goldbach partitions, it looks like all the mathematics I ever heard of are inside that paper. And a lot I didn't hear about, the good part is that I have learned few things googling for some of those names...

Crank for sure.

It's never a good sign of cutting-edge research when half the cited references are four decades old or older, and less than 10% are from this millennium.

Also, [URL="http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304"]Ten Signs a Claimed Mathematical Breakthrough is Wrong[/URL]

[QUOTE=GP2;436974]It's never a good sign of cutting-edge research when half the cited references are four decades old or older, and less than 10% are from this millennium.

Also, [URL="http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304"]Ten Signs a Claimed Mathematical Breakthrough is Wrong[/URL][/QUOTE]

Not enough people cite pythagorus these days.