Proof of the twin prime conjecture (NOT!) - Page 4

chalsall · 2019-02-08, 19:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

I see no reason to think Awojobi is anything other than what appearances suggest: a crank.

You are of course aware that animals tend to see patterns via their sensors?

wblipp · 2019-02-08, 20:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Awojobi

I don't see how you can formulate an entirely different problem and begin to draw an analogy to my twin prime proof.

Just to be sure we are on the same page:
1. you feel that it is obvious that if the set is finite, there must be a last element of the Eratosthenes Sieve.
2. I have shown a different problem where everyone agrees the set is finite and everyone agrees there is no last element of the Eratosthenes Sieve.
3. You do not see any reason why the existence of the second example might cast doubt on the obviousness of the first claim.

If so, I conclude that you are too hard headed to enter into a serious back and forth discussion.

Awojobi · 2019-02-09, 16:12

There we go again i.e. the formulation of new problems and trying to make an analogy with my proof. First of, the word 'factor' is being used instead of 'multiple' and yet some of you show solidarity with this poster. If anybody is being strong headed, it's not me but some of you. Some of you talk of 'rigorous' proof. This is what is blocking you all from accepting the simplicity of my proof because you just can't believe that the proof is that simple especially because Field medalists like Terence Tao and his collaborators are trying in vain with his polymath project to crack this problem.

axn · 2019-02-09, 16:17

The crank score is over 9000!

ET_ · 2019-02-09, 17:02

- * - DISCONNECTED - * -

VBCurtis · 2019-02-09, 18:15

Perhaps OP should spend some time googling proofs of the twin prime conjecture, to see that his "proof" has been presented dozens of times over decades (generations?).
Perhaps when he learns his idea is not new and not original he'll grow less attached to it.
Then again, perhaps he cannot understand the words other people use, and will continue to think his idea is original despite the dozens of others who had the same incorrect idea.

wblipp · 2019-02-09, 22:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Awojobi

There we go again i.e. the formulation of new problems and trying to make an analogy with my proof.

I can't tell you if agree with my three points or if you have failed to read them.

Dr Sardonicus · 2019-02-10, 16:36

I offer a couple of definitions from my old Merriam-Webster Second Unabridged.

crotchet, n.
[...]
3) a a perverse fancy; a whimsey b a fanciful contrivance

crank, n.
[...]
9) A person with a crotchet or a mental twist; one given to fantastic or impracticable projects or a hobby; one overenthusiastic or of perverted judgement in respect to a particular matter; a monomaniac. colloq

I also mention a word which has a couple of meanings: plonk. It has a venerable meaning of cheap or low-grade booze. John Mortimer's character Horace Rumpole ("Rumpole of the Bailey") often referred to the wine at Pomeroy's bar as "Pomeroy's plonk" (as well as "Chateau Thames Embankment").

The word acquired a new meaning with the advent of the Usenet. The Usenet predecessor of this Forum's "Ignore list" had the immensely satisfying name of "kill file." And the term "plonk" meant putting someone's monicker in your kill file. You would then not only not see their posts, you would also not see any notification that their posts were hidden.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Twin Prime Conjecture Proof	Steve One	Miscellaneous Math	53	2019-03-18 00:34
A proof for the Twin Prime Conjecture	Carl Fischbach	Miscellaneous Math	7	2009-06-24 05:52
The Twin Prime Conjecture Song	Templus	Lounge	9	2006-03-14 16:30

2019-02-09, 16:12	#36
Awojobi Feb 2019 133₈ Posts	There we go again i.e. the formulation of new problems and trying to make an analogy with my proof. First of, the word 'factor' is being used instead of 'multiple' and yet some of you show solidarity with this poster. If anybody is being strong headed, it's not me but some of you. Some of you talk of 'rigorous' proof. This is what is blocking you all from accepting the simplicity of my proof because you just can't believe that the proof is that simple especially because Field medalists like Terence Tao and his collaborators are trying in vain with his polymath project to crack this problem.

2019-02-09, 16:17	#37
axn Jun 2003 12ED₁₆ Posts	The crank score is over 9000!

2019-02-09, 17:02	#38
ET_ Banned "Luigi" Aug 2002 Team Italia 1001010111000₂ Posts	- * - DISCONNECTED - * -

2019-02-09, 18:15	#39
VBCurtis "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 4619₁₀ Posts	Perhaps OP should spend some time googling proofs of the twin prime conjecture, to see that his "proof" has been presented dozens of times over decades (generations?). Perhaps when he learns his idea is not new and not original he'll grow less attached to it. Then again, perhaps he cannot understand the words other people use, and will continue to think his idea is original despite the dozens of others who had the same incorrect idea.

2019-02-10, 16:36	#41
Dr Sardonicus Feb 2017 Nowhere 5²×167 Posts	I offer a couple of definitions from my old Merriam-Webster Second Unabridged. crotchet, n. [...] 3) a a perverse fancy; a whimsey b a fanciful contrivance crank, n. [...] 9) A person with a crotchet or a mental twist; one given to fantastic or impracticable projects or a hobby; one overenthusiastic or of perverted judgement in respect to a particular matter; a monomaniac. colloq I also mention a word which has a couple of meanings: plonk. It has a venerable meaning of cheap or low-grade booze. John Mortimer's character Horace Rumpole ("Rumpole of the Bailey") often referred to the wine at Pomeroy's bar as "Pomeroy's plonk" (as well as "Chateau Thames Embankment"). The word acquired a new meaning with the advent of the Usenet. The Usenet predecessor of this Forum's "Ignore list" had the immensely satisfying name of "kill file." And the term "plonk" meant putting someone's monicker in your kill file. You would then not only not see their posts, you would also not see any notification that their posts were hidden.