[QUOTE=Awojobi;526377]I spent weeks trying to come up with a satisfactory proof.[/QUOTE]The amount of time/effort that you have put into trying to find a proof is not a reason that it must be right.

The beauty of my proof is that I don't need to look at every integer individually in the 2nd quarter. The mechanism I describe ensures that new arithmetic means in the 2nd quarter keep being produced until all are produced. The more one reads and thinks about what I have presented here, the more you should be able to appreciate the approach I have used to prove Goldbach's conjecture. The proof doesn't require rigorous maths, just as Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes doesn't require rigorous maths.

[QUOTE=Awojobi;526435]The proof doesn't require rigorous maths, just as Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes doesn't require rigorous maths.[/QUOTE]:crank:
:bs meter:
:barbie:
[QUOTE=Uncwilly;520808]Go here and rate your score:
[url]https://primes.utm.edu/notes/crackpot.html[/url][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=xilman;520810]I count #8, 10, 11, 17, 20, 25 and possibly 9.

Of course, this is not a proof that OP is a crank. It's only a heuristic.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Awojobi;526435]The proof doesn't require rigorous maths, just as Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes doesn't require rigorous maths.[/QUOTE]

Rigorous, down-to-the-axioms proof of Euclid's theorem, for those interested:
[url]http://metamath.tirix.org/infpn.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Awojobi;526435]The beauty of my proof is that [is so sublime that it is completely missing]....[/QUOTE]
Man, Xilman told you why the arguments based only on density do no work, with a beautiful example in post #143. We can come with more examples that follow exactly your reasoning, but then a counterexample is found by modular calculus. We can make xilman's example as complicate as you want, so only one in a trillion of trillions of integers are not covered, by modifying his second set, and your "demonstration" could be applied on those with no fail, however it would prove nothing. I think you are only trolling, because I can't believe somebody with a head on his shoulders does not see the error in the reasoning after so many people trying to explain it to him/her.

I didn't understand what he/she was trying to show me. All I know is that the N/8 prime differences are much more than the prime differences required to achieve Goldbach's conjecture very quickly.

[QUOTE=Awojobi;526477]I didn't understand what he/she was trying to show me. All I know is that the N/8 prime differences are much more than the prime differences required to achieve Goldbach's conjecture very quickly.[/QUOTE]Your "proof" is simply a heuristic argument, not an actual proof. That is the problem here.

We already have many other heuristic arguments that suggest to us that GC is true. Adding another won't magically give us a proof.

For a proof: You have to show, for each of your intervals, from zero to infinity, that there are absolutely no exceptions, ever. Running a series of simulations isn't sufficient unless you can somehow manage to simulate (i.e. test) every interval from zero to infinity. Giving approximations isn't sufficient just because you think each interval is oversubscribed and thus somehow always catches all values (even those weird and tricky values above 10^10^10^10^10 that no one has yet looked at).

The only reason 'approximations' are being used is due to the prime number theorem which doesn't give exact values. My proof is not a heuristic. It is unnecessary to show that every single arithmetic mean is produced. All my proof does is to show that arithmetic means
are produced time after time until all are produced.

[QUOTE=Awojobi;526487]The only reason 'approximations' are being used is due to the prime number theorem which doesn't give exact values.[/QUOTE]Well, there's your problem. You need to give exact values.

[QUOTE=Awojobi;525983]The maximum number of prime differences, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 etc. that can occur in the process is half the number of integers in the 1st quarter i.e. N/8.This is a large number of prime differences and so there is ample opportunity for all the N/4 integers in the second quarter to be produced by the process described since a small fraction of the total number of N/8 prime differences is considered for each prime in the 1st quarter that produces arithmetic means. So only a small fraction of the approximately (N/4)/log e (N/4) primes in the first quarter is required to produce all the N/4 integers in the 2nd quarter. Goldbach's conjecture is proved.[/QUOTE]

I think you need a quantitative estimate. I don't see any proof here. Nevertheless, I appreciate the effort you put in.

[QUOTE=Awojobi;526435]The beauty of my proof is that I don't need to look at every integer individually in the 2nd quarter. The mechanism I describe ensures that new arithmetic means in the 2nd quarter keep being produced until all are produced. The more one reads and thinks about what I have presented here, the more you should be able to appreciate the approach I have used to prove Goldbach's conjecture. The proof doesn't require rigorous maths, just as Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes doesn't require rigorous maths.[/QUOTE]

You can do so in physics but not in mathematics.

[QUOTE=Awojobi;526435]The beauty of my proof is that I don't need to look at every integer individually in the 2nd quarter. The mechanism I describe ensures that new arithmetic means in the 2nd quarter keep being produced until all are produced. The more one reads and thinks about what I have presented here, the more you should be able to appreciate the approach I have used to prove Goldbach's conjecture. The proof doesn't require rigorous maths, just as Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes doesn't require rigorous maths.[/QUOTE]

I understand where you are coming from, but the correct term to use is the complexity.

To you, all rigorous proofs require complicated mathematics. Not true, rather, such proofs are complex.

A rigorous proof is 100% correct and rock-solid, and does not have any flaws

Your argument is not a proof because there is little mathematics, only intuition.