Twin Primes

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

And coming back to this, I think the only way would be an illegimate "averaging" step - it is unlikely that the fraction 2/pn x 2/pn+1 .... 2px [the last prime before SQRT(Pn#)] can sieve out all the remaining gaps in the primorial range,.

Maybe if you actually bothered to LEARN some mathematics instead
of spouting drivel (in this case about "averaging" and "sieving") you
would look less like a crank.

Go learn some number theory. Start with Hardy & Wright.
If you want to have even a basic understand of sieve methods, you
need to read Halberstam and Richert's book.

You are a classic crank. --> ignorant yet believing that you can somehow
prove a result that has eluded the world's finest mathematics for centuries.

STOP

[Hugh]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Maybe if you actually bothered to LEARN some mathematics instead
of spouting drivel (in this case about "averaging" and "sieving") you
would look less like a crank.

Go learn some number theory. Start with Hardy & Wright.
If you want to have even a basic understand of sieve methods, you
need to read Halberstam and Richert's book.

You are a classic crank. --> ignorant yet believing that you can somehow
prove a result that has eluded the world's finest mathematics for centuries.

STOP

To be fair, I've accepted I was being a crank, and I only mentioned "averaging" on the basis it would clearly be nonsense (I've seen another cranky attempt that failed on that basis). That last post was just intended to point out where the hole in my understanding had been, not to suggest I had any idea of how to close it.

I can see more clearly now why this is such an intractable problem - so apologies for any irritation, but I'm genuinely grateful for the advice. axn helped me most by showing me my exact mistake.

Thanks for the reading suggestion - I might take a look and see if I can learn something, but don't worry, I have been successfully cured of the delusion I can contribute anything significant.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I can see more clearly now why this is such an intractable problem - so apologies for any irritation, but I'm genuinely grateful for the advice. axn helped me most by showing me my exact mistake.

.

In assuming that there was just a single "exact" mistake, you are again
acting like a crank. The whole paper was poorly written nonsense.

If you really want to learn, I can and will be helpful. But you need to
stop acting like a crank.

[cmd]

b+|-b

cmd : king of crank

[Hugh]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

In assuming that there was just a single "exact" mistake, you are again
acting like a crank. The whole paper was poorly written nonsense.

Well, yes, fair enough - but he pointed me to the fatal mistake, which makes me understand the problem a tiny bit better.

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

In assuming that there was just a single "exact" mistake, you are again
acting like a crank. The whole paper was poorly written nonsense.

If you really want to learn, I can and will be helpful. But you need to
stop acting like a crank.

Thanks.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Thanks for the reading suggestion - I might take a look and see if I can learn something, but don't worry, I have been successfully cured of the delusion I can contribute anything significant.

What I have never been able to understand is how people without a
math degree can EVER delude themselves into thinking that they
can magically contribute something to a famous unsolved problem.

They toss out things and ask if mathematicians have considered
their "contribution". This is like asking if a baker has ever put his hands into
a bag of flour.

If it is a famous unsolved problems it means that experts have tried to solve
it for a long time and failed. I am continually astonished that amateurs might
ever believe that they can contribute something.

Tell me. Do you also believe that you can contribute something toward
a cure for cancer??? So what makes you believe that you could contribute
something to a difficult problem.

READ:

Dunning & Kruger: Unskilled and Unaware of It

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

If you really want to learn, I can and will be helpful. But you need to
stop acting like a crank.

easier said than done for someone like me, I'm trying a bit but it's hard especially since I like to keep a conversation flowing instead of letting it time to slow from cheetah speed to snails pace.

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Tell me. Do you also believe that you can contribute something toward
a cure for cancer

I've thought on problems like this before and passed a few ideas to pharmacists and such that could deal with the flaws in my ideas better or tell me what's wrong for then I learn more in my case I think.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

I've thought on problems like this before and passed a few ideas to pharmacists and such that could deal with the flaws in my ideas better or tell me what's wrong for then I learn more in my case I think.

Cretin.

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Cretin.

The problem I thought about most like this I think was a better medication for my condition. I was thinking triazene + aldosterone = lisinopril to replace taking prednisone and taking lisinopril. Then one of the 2 people I talked about it with pointed out I should think about making it with a lipophilic group on it. But I think the other pointed out that might over activate the liver.

[cmd]

our relative crank

initially used at post office