[105778] in Cypherpunks
Re: Goldbach's Conjecture (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Choate)
Fri Nov 20 12:47:26 1998
From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:33:24 -0600 (CST)
Reply-To: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Forwarded message:
> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 18:27:39 +0100
> From: Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@stud.uni-muenchen.de>
> Subject: Re: Goldbach's Conjecture (fwd)
> Jim Choate wrote:
>
> > What started this whole enquiry for me was the realization that the
> > multiplication identity axiom is related to the definition of a prime. Then
> > add on top of that the reason we exclude 1 is so we don't have to write
> > '...except for the prime 1' on the end of lots of number theory (re Richard
> > Feynman's comment during the Challenger Investigation). It was the
> > realization that if we go ahead and include 1 so the axioms are in line with
> > each other (and use our cut&paste feature for the '...1...') then perhaps it
> > would provide a more consistent base and just maybe some of the extant
> > problems in number theory might become solvable in other ways. My original
> If you 'define' 1 to be 'prime', you are 'defining' Goldbach's
> conjecture 'away'!
Duh.
I'll give you a hint, more than that single problem goes away.
____________________________________________________________________
Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want
the right answers.
Scully (X-Files)
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
