primesieves for quadratic polynomials

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by bhelmes

Are you sure that this was the latest paper, you worked on ?


It is sometimes amazing how much mathematical work is blowing in the cold and fresh winter air.


Besides it is not the actual missing response which makes me some headache, i am afraid that my mathematical progress is not convincing other.

It's basically the first I've ever done. I'm more in the, it's not exactly remarkable category ( appearance of the paper being consistent, and good looking, may have helped more though). I'm actually making my own random paper recently (Nick is helping me make things easier, admittedly. updating VerbTeX helped)

[bhelmes]

A peaceful and pleasant day,


may be someone has time and fun to read my book about prime generators for irreducible quadratic polynomials.


http://devalco.de/quadratic_prime_sieves.pdf


I thought about writing a second book, but i think it would be helpful to get a little feedback from the first.



If you make homework because of Corona, it might be an interesting reading.


Greetings from the Euler Affinity

Bernhard

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by bhelmes

A peaceful and pleasant day,


may be someone has time and fun to read my book about prime generators for irreducible quadratic polynomials.


http://devalco.de/quadratic_prime_sieves.pdf


I thought about writing a second book, but i think it would be helpful to get a little feedback from the first.

It is complete crap. Most of it is trivial handwaving. What isn't trivial is poorly written.

[I do make allowances that the author is not a native English speaker]. It fails to
discuss or connect well-known conjectures such a Bateman-Horn. It adds nothing
that can't be found in an elementary number theory text and what little is present
is totally lacking in rigor.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Most of it is trivial handwaving. What isn't trivial is poorly written.

Could I have a pointer to the poorly-written, other-than-trivial parts, please? I'd like to understand what he's trying to do but I've always had trouble making sense of it, and you seem to have made more progress than most.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

Could I have a pointer to the poorly-written, other-than-trivial parts, please?

Difficult. As I dissect the paper I realize that it is all trivial. He says the same thing over and over. I ignore the bad grammar, vocabulary and sentence sentence structure.
However, proper punctuation and use of capitalization is often ignored.
The table is full of totally trivial tables of factorizations of small numbers. He repeats his
"sieve code" for every different polynomial. The paper contains almost no mathematics.
His algorithm descriptions are just bad. The paper, supposedly about distribution of
primes actually says nothing about the subject. He babbles about primes that
"appear periodically twice" while failing to realize that f(x) = 0 mod p has two roots
unless the discriminant is 0 mod p. He fails to realize that if f(x) = 0 mod p then
f(x + kp) = 0 mod p. Indeed, the words "arithmetic progression" never appear.
Much of this book could be contained by a short discussion of these two trivial
modular equations.

He fails to define variables. The code that is presented is trivial and pointless.
He uses phrases such as "seems to be a linear distribution". Such phrases have no place in a math paper. Indeed, he fails to define "linear distribution".

The author is totally unaware of existing literature, fails to mention or use any
algebraic number theory, and sometimes uses the same definition for supposedly
different objects, e.g. "reducible prime" and "big prime" have the same definition.

It is replete with trivial tables. He discusses "periodical distribution" then gives a table
with no explanation of what is meant.

He fails to discuss even the simplest things about the density of primes within the
range set of his various polynomials. He appears to know nothing about the role
of the discriminant or class group/class number.

This paper is a superb example of Dunning & Kruger. The author is totally ignorant
of his subject and cannot write even simple mathematics. I give this so-called book
an F. I can hear the authors protest that it does not deserve an F. He is right.
Unfortunately, it is the lowest grade I can give.

It is complete garbage.

[LaurV]

You are a bit too harsh.

The book has a merit, tho:
It is written in a very big font, so, skipping the long contents in the beginning, and of course skipping the tables (who is going to read all those numbers?) you can read the 74 pages, very fast and get rid of it
Better than 74 pages written in small font and with no tables, nor contents.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by LaurV

You are a bit too harsh.

The book has a merit, tho:
It is written in a very big font, so, skipping the long contents in the beginning, and of course skipping the tables (who is going to read all those numbers?) you can read the 74 pages, very fast and get rid of it
Better than 74 pages written in small font and with no tables, nor contents.

From my own experience scrolling through it, I found another possible merit.

Even though I picked up the pace as I went through, and even though I'd had a good night's sleep and was fully caffeinated, by the time I got to the end I felt myself starting to nod off.

This might be a cure for insomnia!

[xilman]

Is it available on Amazon?

I ask because all the supermarkets have run out of regular toilet paper.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by xilman

Is it available on Amazon?

I ask because all the supermarkets have run out of regular toilet paper.

Was waiting to see how long it would be for that analogy to pop up.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Was waiting to see how long it would be for that analogy to pop up.

I have been a subscriber to Private Eye magazine for many years. The current issue announces on its front page, in big garish letters,

48 SHEETS OF TOILET PAPER FREE WITH THIS ISSUE.

[bhelmes]

@sm


You are not able to see the beauty of the described algorithms,
nor you could appreciate a piece of mathematic,
which may be not quite perfect.


Do all famous mathematicians get grumpy at a certain level ?


What does a mathematician do,

if he is not pleased anymore by the math ?