Re: proof of Goldbach conjecture
Virgil
<bfe9e50f-05d8-41ac...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
eestath <stathop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Goldbach conjecture states that every even integer greater then 4 is
> the sum of two primes
>
> Proof
>
> Theorem
>
> Golbach conjecture is true for every n>4 if the two prime numbers are
> different
How about finding two different primes adding up to n = 6 ?
eestath
true error!!!!!
Henry
> Goldbach conjecture states that every even integer greater then 4 is
> the sum of two primes
>
> Proof
>
> Theorem
>
> Golbach conjecture is true for every n>4 if the two prime numbers are
> different
>
> /= (different from)
> Suppose that p/=q and that exist a k (positive integer) such that p+q/
> =2k then we have:
> Is interesting to notice that p and q are odd.
>
> 2^(p+q)=2^(2k)=>
> 2*2^(p/q)/=2^(2k/q)
>
> Theorem 2^(p/q) is irrational number if q does not devide p ( in this
> case is allways irrational because p and q are different prime
> numbers)
>
> So 2*2(p/q) is irrational
>
> In order 2^(2k/q) to be different from 2*2^(p/q), 2^(2k/q) must be
> rational (it cannot be irrational from the assumption)
Why not? there is more than one irrational number
>
> So k must be devided by q or
> k=w*q (w>=1 a positive integer)
>
> We have a contradiction
>
> if k= w*q then we have:
>
> p+q/=2k=>
> p/=2k-q=>
> p/=2*w*q -q=>
> p/=q*(2w-1)
>
> q is odd from the assumption and 2w-1 is odd (the product of odd
> numbers is always odd)
> So p must be different from odd which contradicts the assumption.
Why not? There is more than one odd number.
> Q.E.D.
>
> If p=q Goldbach conjecture is true.
>
> Thus Goldbach conjecture is true for every number greater or equal to
> 4
>
> Dimitris Stathopoulos
> Email: stathopoulo...@hotmail.com
eestath
eestath
2^(p+q)=2^(2k)=>
it should be:
2^(p+q)/=2^(2k)
Henry
> You didn' t even read the assumption!
I tried. But when you use /= (different from)
you sometimes seem to mean "not the same value" and sometimes "sharing
no property" such as irrationality or oddness. The latter would be an
error, as in:
Plato is different from Socrates.
Socrates is dead.
*So Plato is not dead.
eestath
what i am talking about if you read carefully!
first i say that is different from
p+q/=2k (integers diferent from integers)
2^(p+q)=2^(2k) (integers different from integers)
2*2^(p/q)/=2^(2k/q)
[2*2^(p/q) is allways irrational different from both rational and
irrational 2^(2k/q) but from the assumption it couldn't be
irrational]
So it must be rational.
p/=q*(2w-1) (integers different from integers or odd different from
odd [contradiction])
Tonico
> Goldbach conjecture states that every even integer greater then 4 is
> the sum of two primes
>
> Proof
>
> Theorem
>
> Golbach conjecture is true for every n>4 if the two prime numbers are
> different
This is a very interesting theorem, taking into account that
Goldbach's conjecture deals about proving the existence of such a
primes. It's like saying
Conjecture: There are pink unicorns that speak greek
Proof: First we prove a little theorem
Theorem: The conjecture is true if the pink unicorns aren't
hungarian...and etc.
In the above theorem you're saying: the conjecture that says that
every even number greater that 4 is the sum of two primes is true if
the two primes (Which ones? The primes whose existence you've first to
prove?!) are different...doesn't make much sense, does it?
Tonio
eestath
if p/= q Goldbach conjecture is true for every k>4 (i proved that a k
for which p+q/=2k simply do not exist)
if p=q then also is true
Take a logic class!
eestath
Every integer greater or equal then 2 is a product of primes to an
integer power.
Thus integers exist!
Ki Song
Why can't 2^(2k/q) be irrational? You never said anything about q
dividing 2k.
eestath
+q/=2k and is true.
We are trying to see if there is a solution for witch p+q=2k so our
theorem is wrong. Such a solution (k) does not exist. So our theorem
is true.
Arturo Magidin
> Goldbach conjecture states that every even integer greater then 4 is
> the sum of two primes
>
> Proof
>
> Theorem
>
> Golbach conjecture is true for every n>4 if the two prime numbers are
> different
Sorry, I don't follow. (And you forgot "even" didn't you?)
Let n be an even integer greater than 4. Which "two prime numbers" do
you refer to in the statement of this "Theorem"? You cannot assume
that there are two prime numbers p and q such that p+q = n, because
that is what Goldbach's Conjecture asserts, and this is what you are
trying to prove. So which "two prime numbers" are we looking at? Where
do they come from?
(Note that your "Theorem" is of the form:
'If for every n>4, 'the two prime numbers p and q satisfy p=/=q',
then for every m>4, if m is even then m is the sum of two prime
numbers.'
So, what are p and q? How are they related to n?
(Don't tell me to look at the proof of the "Theorem"; first, I want to
understand what the statement *says*)
--
Arturo Magidin
eestath
it does not exist such k!
Arturo Magidin
> I assume that p+q /= 2k for some k>2 (if p/=q) and i simply prove that
> it does not exist such k!
On its face, this is absurd. If p and q are odd numbers, then there
*certainly* exist a k such that p+q =/= 2k. So you are either saying
something that is nonsense, or you are not saying what you mean.
But this is completely irrelevant to my question.
You did not answer my question. Kindly address that question rather
than simply repeat sentences that, on their face, are nonsense.
You state:
> Theorem
> Golbach conjecture is true for every n>4 if the two prime numbers are
> different
expanding a bit, this means that you are stating:
THEOREM.
If for every n>4, the two prime numbers p and q satisfy p=/=q,
then for every m>4, if m is even then m is the sum of two prime
numbers.
What are "the two prime numbers p and q"? How are they related to a
given n>4?
--
Arturo Magidin
Virgil
<076332b6-e43e-48c1...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
eestath <stathop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 9:30�am, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > In article
> > <bfe9e50f-05d8-41ac-87f7-cfd50b55a...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �eestath <stathopoulo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Goldbach conjecture states that every even integer greater then 4 is
> > > the sum of two primes
> >
> > > Proof
> >
> > > Theorem
> >
> > > Golbach conjecture is true for every n>4 if the two prime numbers are
> > > different
> >
> > How about finding two different primes adding up to n = 6 ?
> if p=q is Conjecture is sutisfied...
Your statement "Golbach conjecture is true for every n>4 if the two
prime numbers are different" is equivalent to saying that every integer
greater than 4 is the sum of two DIFFERENT primes
But that is false for the integer 6!
Tim Little
> I explain every time what different from means is easy to understand
> what i am talking about if you read carefully!
Yes, easy to understand. Also esy to see why it's completely wrong.
Have fun with your future trolling!
- Tim
eestath
eestath
so it works like this if A then B
but if B then not A
eestath
Aatu Koskensilta
> so it works like this if A then B
> but if B then not A
So you want to assert not-A, in a curiously roundabout manner?
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
eestath
Aatu Koskensilta
> please try to understand...
So you don't want to assert not-A after all?
eestath
Suppose that exist a k such that p+q/=2k
An i prove that it does not exist such a k.
I said k>2 so 2k>4 so the two prime numbers are odd....
Arturo Magidin
> I simply tell that:
>
> Suppose that exist a k such that p+q/=2k
>
> An i prove that it does not exist such a k.
You are still (i) talking nonsense; and (ii) not answering my
question.
Is it because you are incapable of (i) making sense and (ii) answering
the question? If the answer to either of these two is "yes", then
please stop responding.
You write:
> Theorem
> Golbach conjecture is true for every n>4 if the two prime numbers are
> different
This is *exactly the same* as saying:
"If for every n>4, the two prime numbers p and q satisfy p=/=q,
then for every m>4, if m is even then m is the sum of two prime
numbers. "
My question, AGAIN: what are "the" prime numbers p and q, and how are
they related to n?
Don't tell me what you "simply say". Don't tell me I don't
"understand". Don't tell me I'm not trying. ANSWER THE QUESTION, or
shut up.
--
Arturo Magidin
clicl...@freenet.de
eestath schrieb:
>
> Goldbach conjecture states that every even integer greater then 4 is
> the sum of two primes
Commonly, the conjecture is stated for every even integer >= 4, or
equivalently, every even integer > 3.
>
> Proof
This is the wrong group. Elementary proofs of this conjecture are dealt
with over in sci.math.
>
> Golbach conjecture is true for every n>4 if the two prime numbers are
> different
You do not seem to understand what the conjecture says; perhaps this
expanded wording helps:
For every even integer N >= 4 there exist two prime numbers p and q such
that N = p+q.
>
> [...]
>
> If p=q Goldbach conjecture is true.
>
Your statements are nonsense; you must show that at least one such pair
of prime numbers exists for every N >= 4. For more explanation, please
try sci.math.
Martin.
Aatu Koskensilta
> Suppose that exist a k such that p+q/=2k
>
> An i prove that it does not exist such a k.
You prove there is no k such that the sum of p and q is not equal to 2k?
This would be a startling result. But of course, as others have already
helpfully pointed out, your proof is, unfortunately, nothing but
pointless babble.
eestath
in that way
1.i can understand why i am wrong?
2.i can understand that you get it and you are right!
All i ask is why?
I WELLCOME ANYONE WHO CAN EXPLAIN TO TELL ME WHY!
eestath
"If for every n>4, the two prime numbers p and q satisfy p=/=q,
then for every m>4, if m is even then m is the sum of two prime
numbers. "
No it is not what i say :
If p/=q then it does not exist k sutch that p+q/=2k!
you fail to understand that is if NOT if and only if
So what you are saying is simply wrong!
p and q are prime number that are greater then 2! and correlate to n
(there are all the possible solutions for witch p+q/=2k k>2!)
how the hell did you become a professor!
i am not polite if you are not polite!
Aatu Koskensilta
> No it is not what i say :
>
> If p/=q then it does not exist k sutch that p+q/=2k!
This assertion is equivalent to
(*) If p and q are unequal then p + q = 2k for all k.
which is possibly why some people appear to find your various arguments
rather baffling. Now, it is possible you don't actually intend to assert
(*), but if so, you're doing a poor job of explaining what it is you
actually want to assert.
eestath
Tonico
You are being disingenuous on purpose: at least 5 people so far have
already told you, in several fashions and from several points of view,
that what you think is a proof of GC is just senseless babbling. You
even dared to write me, with a rather nasty attitude, to my personal e-
mail, I responded you, and you still have the nerve to ask for
explanations?
Either you don't want to abide by reason or else you can't; let us not
forget that, after all, you are not a mathematician though the real
problem is, in fact, that your mind suffers from an acute lack of
logic.
Last advice: stop the nonsense, begin studying some mathematics and
give that poor mind of yours some chance to enjoy of some logical
processes of its own.
Tonio
Arturo Magidin
STOP SENDING ME E-MAIL.
I've received no fewer than 7 unwanted missives from you, despite my
telling you *not* to send me e-mail. Anything you have to say, say it
on the newsgroup. Otherwise, I will report your actions as harassment.
T.H. Ray
> Goldbach conjecture states that every even integer
> greater then 4 is
> the sum of two primes
>
> Proof
>
> Theorem
>
> Golbach conjecture is true for every n>4 if the two
> prime numbers are
> different
>
Actually, the conjecture states that every even integer
greater than 4 can be expressed as the sum of two odd
primes. They do not have to be distinct.
> Proof
> /= (different from)
> Suppose that p/=q and that exist a k (positive
> integer) such that p+q/
> =2k then we have:
> Is interesting to notice that p and q are odd.
>
Interesting? Every prime except 2 is odd, and every
integer multipled by 2 is even.
> 2^(p+q)=2^(2k)=>
> 2*2^(p/q)/=2^(2k/q)
>
> Theorem 2^(p/q) is irrational number if q does not
> devide p ( in this
> case is allways irrational because p and q are
> different prime
> numbers)
>
> So 2*2(p/q) is irrational
>
> In order 2^(2k/q) to be different from 2*2^(p/q),
> 2^(2k/q) must be
> rational (it cannot be irrational from the
> assumption)
>
> So k must be devided by q or
> k=w*q (w>=1 a positive integer)
>
Sure, by the fundamental theorem of aithmetic.
> We have a contradiction
>
> if k= w*q then we have:
>
> p+q/=2k=>
> p/=2k-q=>
> p/=2*w*q -q=>
> p/=q*(2w-1)
>
What contradiction? I just can't parse this.
> q is odd from the assumption and 2w-1 is odd (the
> product of odd
> numbers is always odd)
> So p must be different from odd which contradicts the
> assumption.
> Q.E.D.
>
Hmmm. Then p was either 2, or wasn't a prime at all,
as it was supposed to be according to your original
statement about "two different primes." Do you
understand Arturo's question about identifying p & q?
> If p=q Goldbach conjecture is true.
>
> Thus Goldbach conjecture is true for every number
> greater or equal to
> 4
>
Let's test with real numbers. Take p = 3, q = 5. You
want 2^3/5 to be irrational--yes, that works, and will
satisfy irrationality for every p and q. Then you say
that some integer k such that 2^2k/q will always be
rational--When you introduce exponential values of
2, you are simply verifying that the law of exponents
in arithmetic (fractional values can be treated the
same as integers)holds for every n. It doesn't matter
whether we're talking about the 5th root of 2 multiplied
by 3 or the qth root of 2 multipled by 2k. What does
this have to do with the Goldbach Conjecture?
You have to go back, as Magidin said, to what you mean
by p & q. In any case, using the real numbers 3 & 5,
it's easy to see that if p = q, the exponent is 1. So
2^p/q = 2, for every p and q. So?
Tom
> Dimitris Stathopoulos
> Email: stathop...@hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
eestath
2^(2k/q)
could be rational or irrational from the assumption we know that it
could not be irrational so there must be a k witch is devisable by q
i stated that k>2 because p and q are odd for every k>2
it cannot be even prime (2 only) because simply 2k for every k>2 is
the sum of two odd primes
Arturo Magidin
Again: DO NOT reply to me via e-mail, or with copies or your messages,
or with messages with no content and only quoting posts. I am not
interested in getting any personal e-mail from you. Any e-mail I get
from you will be reported as harassment, as I have told you over half
a dozen times already.
I wrote:
>> This is *exactly the same* as saying:
>>
>> "If for every n>4, the two prime numbers p and q satisfy p=/=q,
>> then for every m>4, if m is even then m is the sum of two prime
>> numbers. "
In reference to the original statement, which was:
> Theorem
> Golbach conjecture is true for every n>4 if the two prime numbers are
> different
>
> No it is not what i say :
Yes, it is *exactly* what you said. If it was not what you *meant*,
then the fault is yours.
> If p/=q then it does not exist k sutch that p+q/=2k!
(i) This is *not* what you said in the "theorem". I am not asking you
to explain your argument, I am asking you to explain your
*statement*.
(ii) The statement above is FALSE. It is *patently* false. It is
*idiotically simple* to see it is false. Take p=3 and q=7. Then p=/=q.
You claim there is no k such that p+q =/= 2k. Okay: so, if I take k=4,
then it is *not* true that p+q is different from 2k. But p+q = 3+7
=10, and 2k = 2(4) = 8. So you are saying that 10 and 8 are equal. So
what you are saying is *wrong*.
--
Arturo Magidin
> you fail to understand that is if NOT if and only if
You fail to answer the simple question of explaining what you wrote,
and you fail to understand how stupid what you wrote above is.
Nowhere did I use an "if and only if".
> So what you are saying is simply wrong!
What I am saying is that you are not answering my question as to the
*meaning* of your "theorem". That is a fact, it is not wrong. What
*you* say is trivially wrong.
> p and q are prime number that are greater then 2! and correlate to n
> (there are all the possible solutions for witch p+q/=2k k>2!)
How do they "correlate to n"? Do they go on trips together if they
have enough vacation days?
"Correlate to n" is not a mathematical answer, it is an evasion. Given
n, how do we take p and q?
> how the hell did you become a professor!
>
> i am not polite if you are not polite!
You have been abusive and impolite from the very beginning, by
repeatedly sending me unwanted e-mail despite my requests that you not
do so. Calling you an idiot at this point is not lack of politeness,
it is a simple statement of fact.
--
Arturo Magidin
eestath
i have a lot of fun with you:)
you are funny :)
try to post somewhere you can understand what is going on
i found the proof in 10 minutes and you are asking silly questions 2
days!
if someone understand what i am saying please explain to him!
with you is a waste of time...ask a coworker or someone smarter than
you!
you undergoing these 5 stages:
DENIAL
ANGER
BARGAINING
DIPRESSION
ACCEPTANCE!
Arturo Magidin
> what i am going to do with you Arturo!
>
> i have a lot of fun with you:)
>
> you are funny :)
And you are an incompetent boob. So?
>
> try to post somewhere you can understand what is going on
>
> i found the proof in 10 minutes and you are asking silly questions 2
> days!
And you are failing to answer for three days. What does that tell us?
>
> if someone understand what i am saying please explain to him!
It is *your* responsibility to explain what you are trying to say,
nobody else's. If you cannot explain what your "theorem" says, then
you don't have a statement, let alone a proof.
> with you is a waste of time...ask a coworker or someone smarter than
> you!
>
> you undergoing these 5 stages:
> DENIAL
> ANGER
> BARGAINING
> DIPRESSION
> ACCEPTANCE!
I thought you were just an incompetent boob. I see now that, despite
your laughable claims over e-mail of being "smart", you are just an
idiot and a troll.
--
Arturo Magidin
Aatu Koskensilta
> I thought you were just an incompetent boob. I see now that, despite
> your laughable claims over e-mail of being "smart", you are just an
> idiot and a troll.
I thought the exhortation from eestath I received in e-mail:
i hope that you understand that i am quite smart!
was pretty cute, in a pathetic sort of way.
T.H. Ray
Dude, "2k for every k > 2 is the sum of two odd primes"
is what you are supposed to be trying to prove.
Substituting the symbol k for p + q (odd primes) does not
change the identity, unless you think that n + n differs
from 2(n).
What you've said is that because p + q distinct primes
and 2k integers are both even, Goldbach's Conjecture
follows. But that _is_ Goldbach's Conjecture (as well
as the law of parity, which is independent of the
conjecture).
Whatever sense I can make of the exponential expression
at all in your context, 2k/q cannot differ from 1 when
p = q, as I mentioned before. Are we also trying to
rewrite the exponent law?
Tom
Tonico
It was just a matter of time: after so many trolls, cranks, or simply
stupid individuals, the group has finally met a deranged person:
eestath
Perhaps it's funny, perhaps it's sad, or perhaps it's neither, but it
is new...at least for me.
Tonio
eestath
for all k>2: p+q=2k if p and q are odd and p/=q!
for all k>1: p+q=2k if p=q!
thus i cover all the cases
can anyone find a k sutch that p+q/=2k
simply NOT
eestath
i try to sent everyone a reply and i sent to you
is there a way that i can block you or you to block me
so i do not made the same mistke again!
Arturo Magidin
> aruro how i can block you?
You think before pressing "send".
> i try to sent everyone a reply
Then stop it. If people want to communicate privately with you, they
send you e-mail. When I post, I expect the conversation to remain
public. You sending copies is the usenet equivalent of elbowing people
repeatedly in the gut to catch their attention. If you are that
starved for attention, I suggest you go to Clown College and become
one and stop posting to usenet.
> and i sent to you
>
> is there a way that i can block you or you to block me
Don't send private e-mails; that will do it.
>
> so i do not made the same mistke again!
I would say that the evidence is that you are incapable of not making
the same mistake again, for all kinds of mistakes.
--
Arturo Magidin
eestath
nothing...i am bored allready...:)
best regards!
eestath
women from wearing the veil. Instead of attempting to forbid it
directly (the mathematician’s approach), he issued a decree that all
prostitutes must wear veils. This indirect ‘trick’ proved the
workable, effective way to his objective and shows the sort of
thinking which chessplayers are often rather good at.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> Goldbach conjecture states that every even integer greater then 4 is
> the sum of two primes
>
> Proof
>
> Theorem
>
> Golbach conjecture is true for every n>4 if the two prime numbers are
> different
>
> /= (different from)
> Suppose that p/=q and that exist a k (positive integer) such that p+q/
> =2k then we have:
> Is interesting to notice that p and q are odd.
>
How about p=2, q = 5 and k = 2009? p /= q and p+q /= 2k, so you are
all set.
>
> 2^(p+q)=2^(2k)=>
> 2*2^(p/q)/=2^(2k/q)
>
> Theorem 2^(p/q) is irrational number if q does not devide p ( in this
> case is allways irrational because p and q are different prime
> numbers)
>
Is 3/5 REALLY as irrational as you think (or as you are)?
>
> So 2*2(p/q) is irrational
>
> In order 2^(2k/q) to be different from 2*2^(p/q), 2^(2k/q) must be
> rational (it cannot be irrational from the assumption)
>
> So k must be devided by q or
> k=w*q (w>=1 a positive integer)
>
> We have a contradiction
>
> if k= w*q then we have:
>
> p+q/=2k=>
> p/=2k-q=>
> p/=2*w*q -q=>
> p/=q*(2w-1)
>
> q is odd from the assumption and 2w-1 is odd (the product of odd
> numbers is always odd)
> So p must be different from odd which contradicts the assumption.
> Q.E.D.
>
> If p=q Goldbach conjecture is true.
>
> Thus Goldbach conjecture is true for every number greater or equal to
> 4
>
You boggle minds.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> On 1 Dec, 06:09, eestath <stathopoulo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Goldbach conjecture states that every even integer greater then 4 is
> > the sum of two primes
>
> > Proof
>
> > Theorem
>
> > Golbach conjecture is true for every n>4 if the two prime numbers are
> > different
>
> > Proof
> > /= (different from)
> > Suppose that p/=q and that exist a k (positive integer) such that p+q/
> > =2k then we have:
> > Is interesting to notice that p and q are odd.
>
> > 2*2^(p/q)/=2^(2k/q)
>
> > Theorem 2^(p/q) is irrational number if q does not devide p ( in this
> > case is allways irrational because p and q are different prime
> > numbers)
>
>
> > In order 2^(2k/q) to be different from 2*2^(p/q), 2^(2k/q) must be
> > rational (it cannot be irrational from the assumption)
>
>
Who's counting?
>
> > So k must be devided by q or
> > k=w*q (w>=1 a positive integer)
>
> > We have a contradiction
>
> > if k= w*q then we have:
>
> > p+q/=2k=>
> > p/=2k-q=>
> > p/=2*w*q -q=>
> > p/=q*(2w-1)
>
> > q is odd from the assumption and 2w-1 is odd (the product of odd
> > numbers is always odd)
> > So p must be different from odd which contradicts the assumption.
>
> Why not? There is more than one odd number.
>
These are minor technicalities. Just do everything modulo 2. :-)
>
> > Q.E.D.
>
> > If p=q Goldbach conjecture is true.
>
> > Thus Goldbach conjecture is true for every number greater or equal to
> > 4
>
> > Dimitris Stathopoulos
> > Email: stathopoulo...@hotmail.com
>
>
eestath
for all k>2: p+q=2k if p and q are odd and p/=q!
for all k>1: p+q=2k if p=q!
thus i cover all the cases
p=2 contradicts assumption
2^(3/5) is irrational!
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> integers exist
>
That is indeed a bold statement. ONE must be really brilliant TWO make
such a claim FOUR himself.
>
> Every integer greater or equal then 2 is a product of primes to an
> integer power.
> Thus integers exist!
>
Who told you that primes exist? For example, my Safeway has no prime
beef products at all. Bummer.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
What puzzles me is that he uses actual math notation and knows the
terms like "integer", "prime", "every", "satisfy" and "rational",
without being able to make any logical sense whatsoever.
Does he still claim that the ratio of two primes is irrational?
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> There is a story about a Turkish reformer who wanted to discourage
> women from wearing the veil. Instead of attempting to forbid it
> directly (the mathematician’s approach), he issued a decree that all
> prostitutes must wear veils.
>
Given that prostitution in Muslim countries is a severely punishable
crime, why would prostitutes oblige? To make it easier for the
policemen to apprehend and arrest them?
>
> This indirect ‘trick’ proved the
> workable, effective way to his objective and shows the sort of
> thinking which chessplayers are often rather good at.
>
Chessplayers are illogical? Or do they assume their opponents to be
illogical? I don't think so. Chessplayers plan for the worst case.
Tim Little
> On Dec 2, 11:43 pm, eestath <stathopoulo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There is a story about a Turkish reformer who wanted to discourage
>> women from wearing the veil. Instead of attempting to forbid it
>> directly (the mathematician’s approach), he issued a decree that all
>> prostitutes must wear veils.
>
> Given that prostitution in Muslim countries is a severely punishable
> crime, why would prostitutes oblige? To make it easier for the
> policemen to apprehend and arrest them?
The aim is not that prostitutes would thenceforth wear veils, but that
non-prostitutes may cease wearing veils, as they do not want to appear
to be complying with a legal requirement that applies only to
prostitutes.
- Tim
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
I guess this will work with illogical women... oops, was that a
redundancy?
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
My oh my, you are a brilliant thinker, unbound by the limitations of
human logic. Much too deep for the stupid and logical mathematicians.
Have you submitted your work for consideration for the Nobel Prize? Of
course, there is no such prize for mathematics, but I am sure that in
your case, a Prize in medicine is warranted.
eestath
and you too...you can not deduce it...i guess!!!!!
Does he still claim that the ratio of two primes is irrational?
:)
eestath
rumor that you are candidate? is it true!!!
Tim Little
> I guess this will work with illogical women... oops, was that a
> redundancy?
It doesn't depend upon the women being illogical. It depends only
upon women wishing to avoid expected negative effects from other
people (women or men) assigning a higher likelihood of her being a
prostitute than they would if she did not wear a veil.
It actually depends upon the women being at least logical enough to
predict increased social difficulty from continuing to wear the veil.
- Tim
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> On 2009-12-03, Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I guess this will work with illogical women... oops, was that a
> > redundancy?
>
> It doesn't depend upon the women being illogical. It depends only
> upon women wishing to avoid expected negative effects from other
> people (women or men) assigning a higher likelihood of her being a
> prostitute than they would if she did not wear a veil.
>
Given that, as i said initially, prostitutes will not wear a veil, why
would wearing a veil increase the likelihood of one being a
prostitute?
If anything, the new law will induce *all* prostitutes to stop wearing
veils, even if they had done so prior to this Law.
What if the Sultan issued a law that all homosexuals (or bank robbers)
must play chess at the local coffee house? Would this induce real
chess players from playing chess there?
eestath
THANK YOU VERY MUTCH MY FRIEND ALL I WANTED IS TO KNOW WHY?
YOU ANSWERED CORRECTLY:) WAS THIS SO HARD!
YES IT IS OBVIOUS!:)
eestath
Dik T. Winter
Why are you answering so insulting?
--
dik t. winter, cwi, science park 123, 1098 xg amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Pubkeybreaker
> In article <fc672ffa-444c-4bd8-88fd-d69911499...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com> eestath <stathopoulo...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> >
> > THANK YOU VERY MUTCH MY FRIEND ALL I WANTED IS TO KNOW WHY?
> > YOU ANSWERED CORRECTLY:) WAS THIS SO HARD!
> > YES IT IS OBVIOUS!:)
>
> Why are you answering so insulting?
Because:
A cranks is a crank, of course, of course,
And noone can talk to a crank, of course,
Unless the crank who shouts himself hoarse,
Isn't clueless, dumb, or dead.
Tim Little
> Given that, as i said initially, prostitutes will not wear a veil,
> why would wearing a veil increase the likelihood of one being a
> prostitute?
That is actually irrelevant. All that matters is that some portion of
the population (even a small one) *think* it does, and that women know
that such a portion exists.
- Tim
eestath
would simply stop to exist!:)
i said something if you fail to understand it is ok!i bet is not the
first time! can you disprove it:)
NO
arturo had the confendce that could disprove something an he did...
can you do the same thing...
first try to understand, then find the error!:)
Pubkeybreaker
> On Dec 2, 1:04�am, eestath <stathopoulo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You have been abusive and impolite from the very beginning, by
> repeatedly sending me unwanted e-mail despite my requests that you not
> do so. Calling you an idiot at this point is not lack of politeness,
> it is a simple statement of fact.
>
I too received private and very hostile emails from this person.
They were full of profanity as well.
Let's all simply ignore him.
eestath
make accusation simply...take a minute before you say something:)
you proved your point...!!!!!!!!!!:)
HAVE A NICE DAY:)
fernando revilla
> Theorem
>
> Golbach conjecture is true for every n>4 if the two
> prime numbers are
> different
Perhaps you meant:
G_n : " ( n>4 even number) and ( n=p_n + q_n , p_n, q_n primes) "
(G_n)^* : " ( n>4 even number) and ( n=p_n + q_n , p_n, q_n
primes) and (p_n=/=q_n) ".
Then, (G_n)^* => G_n
In that case, your theorem is true. An alternative proof is:
Proof:
It is a particular case of the tautology (p and q and r) => (p and q).
Regards.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
"Crank" comes form the German word for "sick/ill".
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
>
> THANK YOU VERY MUTCH MY FRIEND ALL I WANTED IS TO KNOW WHY?
> YOU ANSWERED CORRECTLY:) WAS THIS SO HARD!
>
Yes, explaining even the most obvious things to you is indeed very
hard.
>
> YES IT IS OBVIOUS!:)
>
This reminds me of a good Russian joke:
A professor is giving a lecture to a college class. In the middle of
his lecture he says:
- From this, it is obvious that the series is bounded.
Student X meekly raises his hand:
- Why is this obvious?
Professor explains:
- Because of <this> and <that>.
Student:
- But what about <this>, <this> and <that> and the <other>?
So, they keep on their discussion for the next 5 hours, having
exhausted all blackboards in the building. Finally, they finish with
satisfaction. The other students ask student X:
- What did you guys figure out?
- The professor was right: it is obvious.
Dom
> This is *exactly the same* as saying:
>
> "If for every n>4, the two prime numbers p and q satisfy p=/=q,
> then for every m>4, if m is even then m is the sum of two prime
> numbers. "
>
> No it is not what i say :
>
> If p/=q then it does not exist k sutch that p+q/=2k!
As stated, the above is false: 3=/=5 and there exits k=5 such that
3+5=/=2(5).
The rephrased statement: "If p=/=q then there exists k such that p
+q=2k" is obviously true since p+q=2[(p+q)/2]
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> On 2009-12-04, Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Given that, as i said initially, prostitutes will not wear a veil,
> > why would wearing a veil increase the likelihood of one being a
> > prostitute?
>
> That is actually irrelevant. All that matters is that some portion of
> the population (even a small one) *think* it does, and that women know
> that such a portion exists.
>
>
I just heard that the Sultan has ordered that all people planning to
rape somebody, must refer to themselves as "Tim Little".
Do you plan to change your name now?
Tim Little
> I just heard that the Sultan has ordered that all people planning to
> rape somebody, must refer to themselves as "Tim Little".
>
> Do you plan to change your name now?
No, because the intersection of the set of people likely to have any
significant effect on my life, and those who might believe that your
statement has any bearing at all on me, is completely empty.
For a start it's at least quadruply indirect ("you state that you
heard that some hypothetical Sultan ordered that ..."), followed by
the source (a possibly-pseudonymous Internet poster) being not bvery
credible, and finished off by the very high likelihood that I doubt
anyone in around me reads sci.math and so couldn't even believe in a
connection because they never even hear of your statement.
Furthermore "planning to rape somebody" is completely unverifiable,
while the corresponding property in the original story is at least
theoretically verifiable and enforceable.
Now, if it had been my own government (an authoritative source on what
laws are in effect) publically issuing such a law (hence everyone
around me knowing that it exists), for those who had committed rape (a
verifiable property adding to credibility of enforcement), then I
would indeed very likely change my name. Would you?
- Tim
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
The real question is:
Was it **really** Ataturk's order mandating prostitutes to wear veils,
that lead to the drastic reduction in veil/scarf wearing by Turkish
women, or is this one of those urban legends/myths?
BTW:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/30/1067233319985.html
More than half the cabinet ministers, including Foreign Minister
Abdullah Gul, are married to women who cover their heads. Recent
surveys show that more than 60 per cent of Turkish women do this.
Pre-fruit
[snip]
> The real question is:
>
> Was it **really** Ataturk's order mandating prostitutes to wear veils,
> that lead to the drastic reduction in veil/scarf wearing by Turkish
> women, or is this one of those urban legends/myths?
>
> BTW:
>
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/30/1067233319985.html
> More than half the cabinet ministers, including Foreign Minister
> Abdullah Gul, are married to women who cover their heads. Recent
> surveys show that more than 60 per cent of Turkish women do this.
We don't give a rat's ass about either ataturk, fuckaturd or anything turkish
here. This is sci.math, not soc.culture.turkish.
Take this crap where it belongs please.
Tim Little
> The real question is:
>
> Was it **really** Ataturk's order mandating prostitutes to wear veils,
> that lead to the drastic reduction in veil/scarf wearing by Turkish
> women, or is this one of those urban legends/myths?
Facts? Why confuse a simple discussion of rationality by bringing
facts into it? ;-)
- Tim
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > The real question is:
>
> > Was it **really** Ataturk's order mandating prostitutes to wear veils,
> > that lead to the drastic reduction in veil/scarf wearing by Turkish
> > women, or is this one of those urban legends/myths?
>
>
> here. This is sci.math, not soc.culture.turkish.
>
> Take this crap where it belongs please.
>
Why such an inadequate hysterical reaction? What were you upset about?
Had you finally seen your wife without a veil?
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> On 2009-12-09, Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The real question is:
>
> > Was it **really** Ataturk's order mandating prostitutes to wear veils,
> > that lead to the drastic reduction in veil/scarf wearing by Turkish
> > women, or is this one of those urban legends/myths?
>
> Facts? Why confuse a simple discussion of rationality by bringing
> facts into it? ;-)
>
If I gave a serious reply - wouldn't I be accused of having no sense
of humour?
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> On 2009-12-09, Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The real question is:
>
> > Was it **really** Ataturk's order mandating prostitutes to wear veils,
> > that lead to the drastic reduction in veil/scarf wearing by Turkish
> > women, or is this one of those urban legends/myths?
>
> Facts? Why confuse a simple discussion of rationality by bringing
> facts into it? ;-)
>
An engineer and a mathematician are staying in a hotel room while
attending a conference. A fire starts in the room. The engineer wakes
up and smells smoke. He goes to the bathroom, he fills a trashcan
with water and douses the fire. He goes back to bed. But he doesn't
finish the job completely, and the fire returns. Later, the
mathematician wakes up and smells smoke. He goes to the bathroom, sees
the water faucet, thinks for a moment and then exclaims: 'Aha! A
solution exists!' and then goes back to bed.