View Single Post
Old 2004-10-25, 11:36   #8
R.D. Silverman
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
Nov 2003

11101001001002 Posts
Thumbs down

Originally Posted by amateur
None of my business, but the famous mathematician could perhaps explain what is wrong with the other person's reasoning concretely....

Like: You said this, but this is wrong because of ....whatever.

Instead, he is talking in a condescending tone of voice about go and read this, and you are too ignorant, etc.
Just like he would say: I know you will walk into my trap. I know what is wrong, but I am not going to tell you, because I want to teach you a lesson!
And the lesson is that you are not allowed to have ideas, unless you have studied as much as I did and followed all my instructions....

I am sure BOB is a very knowledgable and smart man, but he thinks we are dumb students and he is the teacher. This is wrong. This here is a platform where people with the same interest get together. Everybody is on a different level, and we teach each other or learn from each other.

BOB would be right if he would reprimand a student for not studying, because he is wasting the time and money of the university, but he can't do the same to people who come here with original or not so original ideas.
There is a nice way of telling someone why is he wrong. Nobody likes to be treated like dirt.

Just my 2 cents.
Are you and synergy this arrogant with all of your teachers?

I told synergy in the very beginning that his/her scheme was unworkable
because it required too much computation. I would call that a concrete

I suggested to you and synergy that you spend some time learning the
basics of this subject.

This suggestion was ignored.

I suggested to synergy that he/she count the number of required operations.

This suggestion was ignored.

It is possible to cure ignorance by studying. It is impossible to cure willful
and arrogant ignorance.

You and synergy better learn this, or you will have a very hard time
in school.

Synergy suggested, in a sci.math post that (2^x 3^y - 5^w 7^z) was
prime if it was less than 121 because it is not divisible by 2,3,5,7.

I asked synergy to demonstrate how to determine x,y,w,z so that
N = (2^x 3^y - 5^w 7^z) for a given N < 121. This request was ignored.
I asked synergy if he could demonstrate that every prime p < 121 was in
fact in the range of this exponential expression. This too was ignored.

Synergy proposed that if p = A - B or A + B, where A and B were taken
as the product of primes less than some bound, and if p were bounded, then
p was prime. I agreed with this. But I pointed out that this was handwaving,
not an algorithm, because it failed to specify a method for constructing A
and B. Indeed, synergy even failed to show that every p HAD such a

Now, in later posts, synergy suggests finding A & B by searching all the
possible subsets. I suspected this is what he had in mind originally.
If synergy had bothered to do even the minimal amount of background
research, he would have discovered what I told him in the first place:
It requires too much arithmetic. Yet, synergy continued to cling to
his idea that because his "method" did not involve checking composites,
that it would be faster than existing methods. I also suggested that synergy
look at the SIZE of A and B and estimate the amount of arithmetic needed
to calculate them. This too was ignored.

Let S(n) = {p < n | p prime} and let S = S1 + S2. To prove p prime, we
must find A = product(p in S1) and B = product(p in S2) such that p = A+B,
or p = A-B and p < square of the largest element of S.

This does indeed give a method for proving p prime. However, we have not
proved that every prime p has such a representation. Furthermore there
are 2^n such subsets to be examined. And the arithmetic to compute A and
B is extensive. We have #S(n) ~ n/log n by the PNT. max(A, B)
is approximately exp(n). Thus, the arithmetic to find a represention in
the desired form is O(2^(n/log n) exp(n)). This is DOUBLY exponential in the
size of the problem.

You and synergy are typical of cranks. You refuse to take suggestions, you
refuse to learn the background information needed to discuss the subject,
and you are not even aware of the *extent* of how much you don't know.

I hope you don't have this attitude with your other teachers.

I quote from above:

"BOB would be right if he would reprimand a student for not studying"

This is exactly what you and synergy HAVE done. You refused to do your
studying. I even told you what should be studied.

You can't discuss a subject until you know the basics.
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote