Five million man: proofs of key problems

[Left Coast]

Yes, you say, it is good for humans. I get that. How do you know, that it is good for humans?

By measuring the results.

We've been through this, mikkel.

 

[questfortruth]

why would one of them say you need remedial first-grade math?

It is standard answer to any of the "idiots" and "spammers", who are writing to top journals. The world is psychically sick, and to keep away from sickness the editors do not read the manuscripts from unknown authors.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

By measuring the results.

We've been through this, mikkel.

I know. We measure subjectively in our brains whether we like the outcome or not. The outcome as the outcome man be measured by science. Whether we like the outcome or not can't be done by science.

 

[Left Coast]

I know. We measure subjectively in our brains whether we like the outcome or not. The outcome as the outcome man be measured by science. Whether we like the outcome or not can't be done by science.

The goal is set subjectively. The goal is measured objectively. If you don't care about doing things that benefit humanity (in a way that's demonstrable), there's really nothing to talk about. Fortunately, most folks do care about such things. And that's what they almost invariably mean when you get to the bottom of what they mean by "good."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The goal is set subjectively. The goal is measured objectively. If you don't care about doing things that benefit humanity (in a way that's demonstrable), there's really nothing to talk about. Fortunately, most folks do care about such things. And that's what they almost invariably mean when you get to the bottom of what they mean by "good."

There is no humanity in the strong sense. Biology doesn't work that way. We can try to get there, but that can't be done with science alone.

 

[questfortruth]

Then why would one of them say you need remedial first-grade math?

By measuring the results.

We've been through this, mikkel.

Even if I have proven the Riemann Hypothesis on a single page, I can not get the Prize (1mln$), because I need to build my career in mathematics starting from the first grade: Advice for amateur mathematicians
Otherwise, nobody will read a single line.

 

[Left Coast]

There is no humanity in the strong sense. Biology doesn't work that way. We can try to get there, but that can't be done with science alone.

Humanity just means humans, collectively. We're a social species. Science can and does investigate what benefits us as a species all the time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Humanity just means humans, collectively. We're a social species. Science can and does investigate what benefits us as a species all the time.

The benefit science can give to all humans is limited. In some cases science give advantages to some and disadvantages to others.
How come you think science is some sort of good? It is not, nor is it bad. E.g. in biology you can learn to cure humans or kill more,

 

[Polymath257]

They are not obligated to reject the paper based on found mistakes. They stay legal, if they reject the paper just because the author is unknown to them.

If the mistakes are so basic and there are no substantial ideas, then they will reject the paper. That is how it works.

OK, here's a few critiques:

In your paper on the Riemann Hypothesis, you first incorrectly state Robin's result at the top of page 3. That wouldn't be so bad, but your logic in the paragraph containing equation 3 is so bad that this alone would be enough to reject the paper. 'Allowing a situation' that you do not show actually happens is NOT a proof.

In your paper on Goldbach's conjecture, you mess up the treatment of an 'arbitrary' prime added to an even integer, but manage to salvage something by noting that adding 3 is sufficient. However, your 'short proof' is complete nonsense: Helfgott's result allows for 3 to be one of the summands, but does not manage to prove that it is always possible to guarantee it appears. You need to show that 3 is guaranteed to appear or that there is some odd number for which it CANNOT appear. You fail to do this. Your 'long proof' is even more confused. How does n_3 relate to n_1?

In your paper on the Poincare conjecture, you fail to define what 'uniform density' even means in this context, let alone why spherical coordinates can be used. In other words, you assume your result, a failure of logic.

Your objection concerning the 'caps' just shows you fail to understand the basics here.

All I can say at this point, is that you need to take a basic logic class. You won't be able to do anything in math without it and your papers shows a deep misunderstanding of the basics of the subject.

 

[Polymath257]

Even if I have proven the Riemann Hypothesis on a single page, I can not get the Prize (1mln$), because I need to build my career in mathematics starting from the first grade: Advice for amateur mathematicians
Otherwise, nobody will read a single line.

I have read more than enough of that paper. Your first few pages were an irrelevant diatribe. When you finally got to the math, you go it wrong.

 

[Left Coast]

The benefit science can give to all humans is limited. In some cases science give advantages to some and disadvantages to others.
How come you think science is some sort of good? It is not, nor is it bad. E.g. in biology you can learn to cure humans or kill more,

I think it's useful to understand how to navigate the world outside your head. Of course, you can harm people with that knowledge, as you said. But that harm is defined empirically, just like help. So you need science to have a useful definition of help or harm at all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think it's useful to understand how to navigate the world outside your head. Of course, you can harm people with that knowledge, as you said. But that harm is defined empirically, just like help. So you need science to have a useful definition of help or harm at all.

How do you see harm?

 

[Left Coast]

How do you see harm?

Suffering, injury, death, etc. It can also be measured economically, e.g. loss of income, unemployment, etc.

 

[ecco]

It is standard answer to any of the "idiots" and "spammers", who are writing to top journals. The world is psychically sick, and to keep away from sickness the editors do not read the manuscripts from unknown authors.

Uh huh.



I notice you ignored this part of my post.

Why not post a few chapters here so that we can give you feedback? The links didn't show any of what you wrote.

ETA: It looks like polymath was able to read your "proofs". I look forward to your rebuttal.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Suffering, injury, death, etc. It can also be measured economically, e.g. loss of income, unemployment, etc.

You seem to assume that suffering, injury and death is somehow objectively bad. It is not. Let me show you.

We are now opposing soldiers and if I kill you, it is good for me and bad for you. Now in reverse good and bad are also reversed. So you really have to shown me that your measurement standard is objective and not subjective.

Further back to the human species. There is no single unified human species. Evolution takes places within human and there is not unnatural about exploiting humans and all the rest of the bad things.
For this part of the world this holds:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not."

 

[Polymath257]

It is standard answer to any of the "idiots" and "spammers", who are writing to top journals. The world is psychically sick, and to keep away from sickness the editors do not read the manuscripts from unknown authors.

Simply false. Any editor would *love* to be able to publish a *valid* paper giving a short proof of the Poincare conjecture (or the Goldbach conjecture, or the abc conjecture, or the Riemann Hypothesis).

The problem is that your papers are not valid. They aren't even close. And that is quite apparent from even a cursory inspection of what you wrote.

Now, editors *are* accustomed to getting papers from cranks that *think* they have proved these (as well as others--Fermat's Last Theorem is still very popular). So they are accustomed to reading (even bad submissions) to the first obvious error and, at that point, rejecting the paper.

In your case, that was a correct assessment of what you wrote. if I was given any of these to referee, the recommendation would be to reject. And, frankly, any decent editor would reject out of hand and refuse to send these to a referee because they are so bad.

 

[ecco]

Even if I have proven the Riemann Hypothesis on a single page, I can not get the Prize (1mln$), because I need to build my career in mathematics starting from the first grade: Advice for amateur mathematicians
Otherwise, nobody will read a single line.

Maybe you need to think outside the box. Put your proof into a manuscript, copyright it, and self-publish it.
Send copies of the book to the department heads of the mathematics departments at several dozen colleges.

Surely one of them will read it out of curiosity if nothing else. Since it's copyrighted, no one can steal your thunder.

 

[Left Coast]

You seem to assume that suffering, injury and death is somehow objectively bad. It is not. Let me show you.

Incorrect. I didn't say anything about it being objectively bad. I said we measure the goal objectively. We set the goal subjectively.

We are now opposing soldiers and if I kill you, it is good for me and bad for you. Now in reverse good and bad are also reversed. So you really have to shown me that your measurement standard is objective and not subjective.

The fact that there are complex and nuanced moral situations doesn't alter the goal of reduction of harm. We may never eliminate it entirely, but that doesn't need to stop us from doing our best to reduce it.

Further back to the human species. There is no single unified human species. Evolution takes places within human and there is not unnatural about exploiting humans and all the rest of the bad things.
For this part of the world this holds:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not."

I think you're just reiterating the same point here, which is that the goal is subjective. I have no argument with that.

Again, we've been over this. I walk you through the logic of it, and you eventually seem to concede, time after time.

 

[questfortruth]

'Allowing a situation' that you do not show actually happens is NOT a proof.

It can be argued. Look: the Riemann Hypothesis could have no proof at all, even if it is valid. So, one can look for other, unusual ways of proving.
I mean following: the mathematics is consistent with the thesis ``situation is allowed'', however that drives us to the described contradiction; thus, to avoid such contradiction, we must accept validity of Riemann Hypothesis.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Incorrect. I didn't say anything about it being objectively bad. I said we measure the goal objectively. We set the goal subjectively.
...

Now you just have to show with science, philosophy and/or religion that the "we" is objective.