michusid

Is my proof correct?

Recommended Posts

!

Moderator Note

If you want to discuss something, post it here. (please see rule 2.7 in the guidelines) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

If you want to discuss something, post it here. (please see rule 2.7 in the guidelines) 

 

Is my proof correct?

finalengl.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you take \(p_2\) and \(p_4\) from [8] to use in [9]?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

since it is proved in paragraph 1 that 2N can have any value. I can choose 2p2 + 2p4 +2. This is the sum of two adjacent ones. adjacent even numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, michusid said:

since it is proved in paragraph 1 that 2N can have any value. I can choose 2p2 + 2p4 +2. This is the sum of two adjacent ones. adjacent even numbers.

Very well then. But your paragraphs are not numbered. Which one of your paragraphs do you number by 1, what does it say?

In [8] what is N? You did not specify what N means. 

If \(2N_1\) is the "previous even number" (what does that mean?) and [8] says that \(p_1+p_2+p_3+p_4 = 2N\) holds, then why is \(p_2+p_4=2N_1\) true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, what is your paragraph number 1, please explain what it says.

If \(2N = 12,\) and \(p_1=p_2=p_3=p_4=3,\) then if \(2N_1=10\) is the previous even number 10 before 12, then \(p_2+p_4 = 3 + 3 = 6 \neq 2N_1  = 10.\)  So why do you say that \(p_2+p_4=2N_1?\) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You are doing a grand job checking the detail.

:)

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. For the first even number 12 = 3+3+3+3.
 
We allow justice for the previous N> 5:                        p1 + p2 + p3 + p4 =2N                               [3]      We will add to both parts on 1                  p1 + p2 + p3 + p4 +1 =2N +1                          [4]       where on the right the odd number also agrees [1]        p1 + p2 + p3 + p4 +1= p5 + p6 + p7                         [5]
      Having added to both parts still on 1 

          p1 + p2 + p3 + p4 + 2= p5 + p6 + p7 +1               [6]          We will unite    p6 + p7 +1    again we have some odd number,
 
which according to [1] we replace with the sum of three simple and as a result we receive:            p1 + p2 + p3 + p4 + 2= p5 + p6 + p7 + p8              [7]   at the left the following even number is relative [3], and on the right the sum
 
four prime numbers.           p1 + p2 + p3 + p4 = 2N                                          [8]
 
Thus obvious performance of an inductive mathematical method. As was to be shown.

This is item 1. Previous 12 next14, previous 14 next 16 i mat. induction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you: I see now which part of the explanation you refer to as "paragraph 1". The confusion comes from the fact that it does not appear to explain the things that come later.

My question remains the same. In [8] you say \(p_1+p_2+p_3+p_4 = 2N. \) And (skipping the intermediate [9]) in [10] you say in effect \( N-1 = p_2+p_4.\) Are the primes not supposed to be odd? What if \(N\) is an even number?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Автор нашего вопроса и снимает свой вопрос с форума. 

The author found his mistake and removes his question from the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The author proposes another version of the proof, as I found an error in the previously laid out one.

http://new-idea.kulichki.net/pubfiles/190210115350.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The author is still being very careless.

[1] is taken to mean the version of the weak Goldbach problem in which every odd number \(\geq 7\) is a sum of three primes. This holds for the number 7, by writing 7 as the sum \(2+2+3.\) Sometimes you have to use the even prime 2. Now in equation [5] some of the primes may be even. Therefore it is wrong to say that \(p_6+p_7+1\) is an odd number. And it is also wrong to say that it is at least as large as 7.

To get to [7] from [6] is possible if and only if \(p_8=1.\) This is false however. Similarly it is possible to deduce [11] from [10] if and only if \(p_7+p_8=2.\) This is absurd.

The logic is very flawed. It is very easy to find primes \(p_1,\ldots, p_6\) for which [9] is true. So it is meaningless to try to deduce a contradiction from [9] alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The prime even number 2.4 is already composite. 1 is not a prime number. It is not defined. The sum of three simple odd numbers starting from 7. The sum of two simple two does not include 2 otherwise
get an even number except
  2 + 2 = 4
It does not interest us and does not affect
on the proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Goldbach's weak problem is formulated as follows:

Each odd number greater than 7 can be represented as a sum of three odd prime numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, michusid said:

Goldbach's weak problem is formulated as follows:

Each odd number greater than 7 can be represented as a sum of three odd prime numbers.

Why would you say that? The equation [1] clearly talks about the weaker conjecture, which does not require odd primes. Or am I looking at the wrong version of the paper now? Please replace it by the correct version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is known that the weak problem of Goldbach is finally solved.
 [one]
where on the left is the sum of three prime numbers
more than 7(you are right in the text
  mistake)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we compare [10] and [11] it only makes sense if we assume \(p_7+p_8=2.\)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thank . You really are right [11] should be p5 + p6 + 1 +1 = p7 + p8 + p9 +1 = p9 + p10 + p11 + p12.
 Here it is a matter of renaming. From the side may not understand. It is necessary to correct.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite. In [9], [10] and [11] we have inequalities \(\neq.\) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now