0
0

Revolutionary Prime Number Distribution Discovery (self.math)

incorruptibal が 投稿

The fundamentals to the distribution of prime numbers could never have been understood until now because we did not know how to properly frame the problem. Their order/behavior and their reason can finally be understood in their own context.

Please do not bother commenting unless you have read (and understand).

EDIT: I recommend reading the introduction, but you can skip down to the details under the header if you'd like. Also have a look under the bottom header for conclusions. It may also be helpful to refer to the abstract on the bottom of the post before and during the reading of the main text.

http://bagforpunching.blogspot.ca/2015/09/r-sheppard-prime-form-theory-novel.html

全 6 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]AbstractCategoryAlgebra 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

This is going to seem harsh, but I would like to give some honest feedback

 

Naming a discovery after yourself is bad 'form'.

Refusing comments from anyone who has not read and understood your enormous post is rude, and makes people less likely to request clarification.

Making an enormous preamble about how revolutionary your ideas are, instead of going straight into the details is arrogant, annoying, and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how mathematicians operate.

 

EDIT: I read more. You don't adequately explain how you arrived at this form. Remember the burden is always on the author to make things as clear as possible, not on the reader to interpret unclear exposition.

Also, saying some idea about numbers explains the inner workings of the universe is almost sure to earn you a crackpot label.

[–]incorruptibal[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you for your feedback.

In immediately diving into details I feel I would lose the reader; the unorthodox nature of my discovery demands some sort of introduction. Without this introduction people would simply pass my idea as nonsensical because they would not know what the point is. I considered leaving it out, trust me, but in the end I felt it was a necessary primer.

I apologize if I seem arrogant by naming my discovery after myself. Maybe you are right and that is a little arrogant. My reasoning was that I didn't want to lose credit for something I singlehandedly unearthed, as I know has happened historically.

[–]incorruptibal[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I will also point out that you are precisely the reason I requested people to read my idea before critiquing it.

People like you seek to invalidate ideas which challenge the status-quo not for scientific rigor, but for their own glory. Here we have a potentially ground-breaking discovery which infringes upon your own understanding (and, apparently, in your case, ego). Instead of welcoming a possible new discovery by taking the time to examine it, or allowing others to examine it, you attempt to ridicule it in a not at all subtle manner without the slightest intention of giving it a chance, then resort to insulting and trying to discredit the author personally.

If your interest is in discrediting the idea, great. But before you attempt to discredit it it is necessary to attempt to understand it. If you are unwilling, then please save your criticisms as they are coming from a place of personal pride, not of reason.

Thank you my friend.

[–]incorruptibal[S] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have arrived at this form intuitively by examining and reconciling all the fundamentals, as most profound discoveries often are. The onus is on me to prove it, true. But how does one prove the ultimate nature of numbers? Or any truly profound law or system? By examining it and observing that it is self-evident, and entirely consistent.

[–]MattMorphicTopology 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I've tried reading through it several times, but I just get lost amongst the waffle. It sounds like you're talking about the primes as if they are physical things; sentences like "With each expansion the Prime Form has two opposing and equal sides so as not to lose its coherency and scatter apart from itself into nothingness" don't mean anything.

Make it more concise, and give it some mathematical rigour rather than these descriptive paragraphs, because even if it is as revolutionary as you say it is, if we have no basis to be able to apply it to proofs, then it's useless.

[–]incorruptibal[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

thank you for trying. And I assure you I believe or intend no such thing.