Wall-Sun-Sun primes - Page 5

Gandolf · 2016-09-29, 05:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Batalov

You didn't?

Maybe you misunderstood the concept of the slippery slope?
Slippery slope has to do with the logic of the argument. It has nothing to do with "attacking you".

In contrast, these are not just one but two personal attacks:

Comments?

No, it was preceded by open prejudice against an amateur with a solution to a difficult problem. That is offensive, and a very common form of bigotry, in the field. It's bullshit. Fuck that. I will be speaking about it after I publish. I will not be speaking kindly of him.

If you call something a slippery slope, a common phrase, you are absolutely obligated say something about what you are referring to. Slippery logic as far as I know is being stupid, silly, careless with an argument etc. The wiki link didn't apply to anything I said.
He offered no reason why he would say that. You have crazy ideas, ......what ideas are crazy? .....silence....

Take Charles's word "with a grain of salt". Take it as an insult, but don't worry, Charles is famous for saying this about others, even without reading their papers. That is when I immediately knew that he was an ass. You can't judge someone's math without reading the paper. You can't just base your judgment on some wacky social predicate.

Anyways, it has nothing to do with WSS.

CRGreathouse · 2016-09-29, 06:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandolf

Just figured I'd re-iterate that it was an open question, with a strong hypothesis, not just a weak conjecture as stated by Charles.

By "weak conjecture" I meant only that Wall wasn't expressing a high degree of certainty.

Batalov · 2016-09-29, 06:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandolf

If you call something a slippery slope, a common phrase, you are absolutely obligated say something about what you are referring to.

Except if one is replying to the previous line, which he did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandolf

...As you can see the antecedent(normally viewed as the consequent) is an infinite expression.
$p^2|F_{\alpha(p)}$ , if and only if $F_{F_{F_{F_{F_{F_{F_{F_{p^2}}}}}}}}...|F_{F_{F_{F_{F_{F_{F_{F_{F_{\alpha(p)}}}}}}}}}...$ .
The left side is unsolvable, but the right side is easy as pi. In this case we use the latter as the antecedent, since for this question it gives us the desired answer.

That, above, is a slippery slope argument. The argument slips from singular to an infinite expression.

Now listen carefully - one more personal attack will lead to a permanent ban. But for now, a week ban to sit back and think twice before calling someone who was foolishly helping you - the pile of ugly things that you just dumped in the previous message.

CRGreathouse · 2016-09-29, 06:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandolf

You can't judge someone's math without reading the paper. You can't just base your judgment on some wacky social predicate.

Sure you can -- and must, if you're to make any headway through the vast number of published and unpublished papers today. Here are three links dealing with this sort of mental heuristic, from gentlest to harshest:
https://terrytao.wordpress.com/caree...or-big-theory/
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304
http://primes.utm.edu/notes/crackpot.html

Not everyone has the courage these three show by posting these guidelines, but everyone -- by virtue of the sheer amount of material out there -- has to have some principles on what they choose to read. Maybe they prefer to read whatever they come across first, maybe they read only what has been recommended to them in person, maybe they read only what is assigned in their classes, but somehow or other they have to decide between reading this, this, and everything else.

I'm sorry you're so offended by my application of my heuristics, or in explaining such frankly. I imagine many others merely passed the thread by rather than risk comment. Certainly I leave open the possibility that you have some great discovery which I have passed over in error. (There's always a Type I/Type II tradeoff.) I will revisit my decision if and when your paper is accepted for publication in a reputable journal.

As for the heuristics themselves, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on distinguishing papers which are worth your time to read from those which are not. This would belong in a new thread, naturally.

axn · 2016-10-04, 08:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandolf

An abstract example of a Fibonacci-Wieferich prime p, where $p_{1}=p,\ e_{1}\ge 2$ .
If $i=F_{(F_{(u_{p^1})})}=(F_{(p_{1}^2)}\ \cdot\ F_{(p_{2}^{e_{2}})}\ \cdot\ ...\ F_{(p_{n}^{e_{n}})}\ \cdot\ \prod{})$ then, can the entry point of $i$ still equal the same index, ie $u_{(F_{(F_{(u_{p^1})}}))}=F_{(u_{p^1})}$ ?
Answer: No.
Proof: ''This is based upon the observation that the entry point of the product of primitive prime factors, is supposed to be equal to the entry point of the product of non-primitive prime factors, ie Fibonacci numbers with unique factorization for indices, in this case.''

The factor, $j=(F_{(p_{1}^1)}\ \cdot\ F_{(p_{2}^{e_{2}})}\ \cdot\ ...\ F_{(p_{n}^{e_{n}})}\ \cdot\ \prod{})$ always has an entry point of, $u_j=\operatorname{lcm}[p_{1}^1,\ p_{2}^{e_{2}},\ ...\ p_{n}^{e_{n}},\ F_{(u_{p^1})}]=\operatorname{lcm}[p_{1}^1,\ p_{2}^{e_{2}},\ ...\ p_{n}^{e_{n}}]=F_{(u_{p^1})}$ .
While the factor $i$ has a later entry point, $u_i=\operatorname{lcm}[p_{1}^{2},\ p_{2}^{e_{2}},\ ...\ p_{n}^{e_{n}},\ F_{(u_{p^1})}]=\operatorname{lcm}[p_{1}^{2},\ p_{2}^{e_{2}},\ ...\ p_{n}^{e_{n}}]\neq F_{(u_{p^1})}=F_{(p\cdot u_{p^1})}$

This looks suspect. By hypothesis, p1^e1 divides F(u(p1)). Hence lcm[p1, p2^e2, ... , F(u(p1))] = p1^e1*p2^e2... = F(u(p1)). But lcm[p1^2, p2^e2, ... , F(u(p1))] will also be p1^e1*p2^e2 ... = F(u(p1)).

Gandolf · 2017-04-13, 20:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by axn

This looks suspect. By hypothesis, p1^e1 divides F(u(p1)). Hence lcm[p1, p2^e2, ... , F(u(p1))] = p1^e1*p2^e2... = F(u(p1)). But lcm[p1^2, p2^e2, ... , F(u(p1))] will also be p1^e1*p2^e2 ... = F(u(p1)).

Yes. The paper and subsequent refinements have been reviewed by several journals although unfortunately none of them decided to publish the results based on conflicts of interest, and the controversial nature of the subject matter. The consensus is that both the main idea and stratagem appear to be correct though. The paper now splits the fundamental theorem of arithmetic into 4 groups, in order to prove the final collective result in terms of Fibonacci numbers rather than natural numbers. These kinds of questions may very well not be answerable in terms of natural numbers, directly.

Dr. Carl Pomerance has semi-officially proof-read the paper and he made some very good suggestions that made it into the revised paper. Both Marc Renault and Pomerance appear in the acknowledgment section for their contributions.

This paper remains a working draft.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bkdkhhmnexyynd6/Wall.pdf?dl=0

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Joys of Cracked.com: 5 Ways We Ruined the Occupy Wall Street Generation	Dubslow	Soap Box	17	2012-05-14 08:51
Wall Street Pundits are such Weenies	ewmayer	Soap Box	25	2009-06-17 23:07
Head, meet wall	fivemack	Factoring	13	2007-04-13 23:26
possible primes (real primes & poss.prime products)	troels munkner	Miscellaneous Math	4	2006-06-02 08:35
The Ladder Against The Wall	Numbers	Puzzles	27	2005-07-02 10:19