A Study of Primes Through Non-Resonant Sine Waves

[EdH]

A couple years ago I was playing around with an idea of showing the relationship of resonance to prime numbers. The following paper is the result of that "playing."

It is presented here for review and critique, in its unfinished form. It is probably of no true worth, other than the interest I had in exploring the topic at the time.

I have seen no other work directly related to it, but my math community involvement has been almost non-existent for far too many years...

All comments welcome. Pile it on - I have high shoulders.

A Study of Primes Through Non-Resonant Sine Waves (pdf document)

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by EdH

A couple years ago I was playing around with an idea of showing the relationship of resonance to prime numbers. The following paper is the result of that "playing."

It is presented here for review and critique, in its unfinished form. It is probably of no true worth, other than the interest I had in exploring the topic at the time.

I have seen no other work directly related to it, but my math community involvement has been almost non-existent for far too many years...

All comments welcome. Pile it on - I have high shoulders.

A Study of Primes Through Non-Resonant Sine Waves (pdf document)

The paper has no merit whatsoever.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by EdH

A couple years ago I was playing around with an idea of showing the relationship of resonance to prime numbers. The following paper is the result of that "playing."

I used to do that sort of thing all the time in my teens.

It is presented here for review and critique, in its unfinished form. It is probably of no true worth, other than the interest I had in exploring the topic at the time.

I have seen no other work directly related to it, but my math community involvement has been almost non-existent for far too many years...

What you've done in pages 1-9 could be boiled down to a visually interesting, but computationally-expensive implementation of the Sieve of Eratosthenes. (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SieveofEratosthenes.html)

I say "computationally-expensive" because finding each prime in your method requires many trigonometric function computations, whereas, as you can see from the MathWorld article, no trigonometric computation is actually required to find your zero-crossing-at-integer values.

As you quite accurately believed, "there is a way mathematically".

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

The paper has no merit whatsoever.

Moderators,

Can we just have a deletion of every Silverman post in which he makes only such useless down-putting (not to mention, erroneous) remarks as that one?

He's just discouraging newbies from posting in our forum, which, you will note, is exactly what he has publicly stated that he wants to do. He wants to drive out new participants who do not meet his personal standards of worthiness to post math-related messages.

Again: He has publicly stated that he wants to discourage certain people from participating in this forum in a proper manner. I think that goes beyond the bounds of proper forum behavior, and he evidently cannot control his compulsion to post cutting remarks.

We've humored him for years because of his genuine number-theoretical talent, but he's become more of a negative contributor than a positive one.



- - -

Mr. Silverman,

Will you please seek treatment for your obsessive-compulsive disorder?

- - -

EdH,

I recommend that you put R.D. Silverman on your forum "Ignore List".

Click on "User CP" at left side of top just-under-the-heading-line.

At User Control Panel, click on "Edit Ignore List" at the left under "Settings & Options".

[xilman]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Moderators,

Can we just have a deletion of every Silverman post in which he makes only such useless down-putting (not to mention, erroneous) remarks as that one?

Can, but won't.

That's my view, anyway. A frequent poster to this forum will recognize that particular put-down because I used it on him a number of times in email. Identity withheld in order to protect the guilty.

Newbie posters need to develop a thick skin. I will very happily assist them to do that, but I won't disguise that necessity through censorship of others.

IMAO, newbies should also develop their skills in presenting an argument, whether mathematical or otherwise. Again, I'm very happy to help them in that process.

If Bob's arguments are erroneous, say so in public and, especially, explain why they are erroneous. I've known Bob for about twenty years now. In my experience he has invariably acknowedged his errors whenever they have been pointed out to him.

I've also spent many years arguing that his pedagogical approach may be sub-optimal. He's as entitled to his approach as I am mine. Time will tell which of us has been the more effective.

Personal opinion: it's not only newbies that need to develop a thick skin.


Paul

[retina]

Is someone with 271 posts here still a newbie?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by retina

Is someone with 271 posts here still a newbie?

Mathematical newbie.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by xilman

Can, but won't.

That's my view, anyway.

< snip >

Paul

Fine. I didn't expect my request to be taken literally. I'm quite aware that I'm a bit too volatile to be a good moderator.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by xilman

Paul quoted from another post:

Can we just have a deletion of every Silverman post in which he makes only such useless down-putting (not to mention, erroneous) remarks as that one?

Paul

I am qualified to make such a judgment about a mathematical paper.
Cheesehead & retina and others are not. They have never: (AFAIK)

(1) Acted as an editor of a research publication,
(2) Acted as a referee for a paper wanting to be published,
(3) Acted as a reviewer for a paper already published,
(4) Had to deal with a professional review of a paper that they
submitted for publication,
(5) And have never acted as a teaching fellow (with grading responsibilities) for a math course.

They do not have the competence to make a judgment about the
mathematical value of a paper.

If my peers in this forum believe that I am mistaken in my judgment
about the paper, then I gladly accept their criticisms.

Someone submitting a paper in a public forum should meet certain minimal
standards of scholarship. The paper under discussion does not meet those
standards. It contains a lot of handwaving, non-standard use of notation,
and much too little rigor to be taken seriously. In a general way it is
much too informal to have much merit.

Finally, it is no mystery that sine functions (and their compositions) are
periodic in a way that corresponds to the periodicity of modular arithmetic.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by xilman

Can, but won't.

That's my view, anyway. A frequent poster to this forum will recognize that particular put-down because I used it on him a number of times in email. Identity withheld in order to protect the guilty.

<snip>

I treated this paper no differently from other papers that I get asked to
review. The author is anonymous, so I can't be accused of personal
bias.

There have been a number of papers that I have been asked to referee
that I sent back very quickly (to the editor) with the simple note that
the paper was so poor as not to merit diligent scrutiny.

I have even had two papers of mine rejected with the review:
"not much merit" and "not very interesting". In both cases I simply
asked for further explanation, revised them accordingly, and submitted
them elsewhere.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by xilman

In my experience he has invariably acknowedged his errors whenever they have been pointed out to him.

Here is a minor contra-example.

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

That is i7 not I7.

I understand that it is picky, but trade names are specific like that.