Talk:1310: Goldbach Conjectures - Revision history

81.179.199.253: Don't actually understand it, so having to presume it is misplaced. Whether or not it is not also/instead mis-indented.

2026-05-13T12:15:23Z

Don't actually understand it, so having to presume it is misplaced. Whether or not it is not also/instead mis-indented.

RG at 02:13, 13 May 2026

2026-05-13T02:13:06Z

162.158.126.204: comments on proof of ternary Goldbach

2024-08-27T12:26:52Z

comments on proof of ternary Goldbach

162.158.58.243 at 18:17, 28 April 2019

2019-04-28T18:17:37Z

108.162.219.125: removed my comment, I was wrong

2015-02-10T02:45:26Z

removed my comment, I was wrong

108.162.219.125: my opinion

2015-02-10T01:09:48Z

my opinion

108.162.250.220 at 07:58, 12 October 2014

2014-10-12T07:58:42Z

199.27.133.59: changed "I'll attempt to add" to "I added"

2014-07-10T08:55:45Z

changed "I'll attempt to add" to "I added"

199.27.133.59: "A does not imply B" is problematic

2014-07-10T08:52:21Z

"A does not imply B" is problematic

108.162.215.56 at 13:03, 9 February 2014

2014-02-09T13:03:33Z

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ::Let's ask: Tepples, are you a bot? And 199.27.128.62, what about you? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 ::It's come too far now days.[[User:RG|RG]] ([[User talk:RG|talk]]) 02:13, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
 I thought that <nowiki>{{incomplete|Created by a BOT}}</nowiki> means that the template was inserted by a BOT. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.84|173.245.50.84]] 13:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:13, 13 May 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:

	::Let's ask: Tepples, are you a bot? And 199.27.128.62, what about you? -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 10:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)		::Let's ask: Tepples, are you a bot? And 199.27.128.62, what about you? -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 10:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
		+
		+	::It's come too far now days.[[User:RG\|RG]] ([[User talk:RG\|talk]]) 02:13, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

	:::Yes, I'm a bot. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.62\|199.27.128.62]] 21:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)		:::Yes, I'm a bot. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.62\|199.27.128.62]] 21:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:26, 27 August 2024
Line 54:		Line 54:
	64=3+61;5+59;11+53 ;17+47;23+41		64=3+61;5+59;11+53 ;17+47;23+41
	82=3+79;11+71 ;23+59;29+53;41+41		82=3+79;11+71 ;23+59;29+53;41+41
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	Hello, I am not a regular user here (I have no account), but I am a working analytic number theorist. Harald Helfgott's proof of the ternary (i.e., weak) Goldbach conjecture has indeed been accepted as correct.
		+
		+	[[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.204\|162.158.126.204]] 12:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC) Frank Thorne

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:17, 28 April 2019
Line 34:		Line 34:

	The paradoxical prime conjecture states that the paradoxical prime conjecture is false. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.220\|108.162.250.220]] 07:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)		The paradoxical prime conjecture states that the paradoxical prime conjecture is false. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.220\|108.162.250.220]] 07:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	KYT's conjecture - prime numbers pattern
		+
		+	KYT's conjecture is described as follows:
		+
		+	a is a positive integer and is even, a>=8, b=a+18, a=c+D, c, D,E are prime numbers.
		+
		+	a=c+D
		+	b=c+E
		+
		+	E=D+18=b-c
		+
		+	There must be a prime number c that satisfies the two equations above.
		+	More examples are as follows:
		+
		+	10=3+7;5+5
		+	28=5+23;11+17
		+	46=3+43;5+41;17+29;23+23
		+	64=3+61;5+59;11+53 ;17+47;23+41
		+	82=3+79;11+71 ;23+59;29+53;41+41

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:45, 10 February 2015
Line 34:		Line 34:

	The paradoxical prime conjecture states that the paradoxical prime conjecture is false. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.220\|108.162.250.220]] 07:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)		The paradoxical prime conjecture states that the paradoxical prime conjecture is false. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.220\|108.162.250.220]] 07:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
−
−	Maybe it could be added in the explanation that, the extremely strong conjecture being proven true, all others would hold (extremely weak is problematic). I deduced that from reading the explanation alone, but I really can't know if it's clear enough for everyone. Plus, without understanding this, the conjecture alone sounds very weird. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.125\|108.162.219.125]] 01:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:09, 10 February 2015
Line 34:		Line 34:

	The paradoxical prime conjecture states that the paradoxical prime conjecture is false. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.220\|108.162.250.220]] 07:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)		The paradoxical prime conjecture states that the paradoxical prime conjecture is false. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.220\|108.162.250.220]] 07:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	Maybe it could be added in the explanation that, the extremely strong conjecture being proven true, all others would hold (extremely weak is problematic). I deduced that from reading the explanation alone, but I really can't know if it's clear enough for everyone. Plus, without understanding this, the conjecture alone sounds very weird. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.125\|108.162.219.125]] 01:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:58, 12 October 2014
Line 32:		Line 32:

	This sentence is problematic: "The weak conjecture does not, however, imply the strong conjecture." "A does not imply B" technically means "A and not B" which, I'm sure, isn't what was meant. I added "in any evident way" which I think corrects it. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.59\|199.27.133.59]] 08:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)		This sentence is problematic: "The weak conjecture does not, however, imply the strong conjecture." "A does not imply B" technically means "A and not B" which, I'm sure, isn't what was meant. I added "in any evident way" which I think corrects it. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.59\|199.27.133.59]] 08:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	The paradoxical prime conjecture states that the paradoxical prime conjecture is false. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.220\|108.162.250.220]] 07:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:55, 10 July 2014
Line 31:		Line 31:
	: It can be argued that since the "extremely strong" conjecture is obviously a contradiction (as in the logical sense, "a formula that's always false"), thereby, can imply any other formula. That is, if p is always false, then (p->q) for any q is always true. In this sense, if the "strong" version gets proved somehow, you get an inconsistent logical system, in which each and every formula can be proved as true, including those weaker forms. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.56\|108.162.215.56]] 13:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)		: It can be argued that since the "extremely strong" conjecture is obviously a contradiction (as in the logical sense, "a formula that's always false"), thereby, can imply any other formula. That is, if p is always false, then (p->q) for any q is always true. In this sense, if the "strong" version gets proved somehow, you get an inconsistent logical system, in which each and every formula can be proved as true, including those weaker forms. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.56\|108.162.215.56]] 13:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

−	This sentence is problematic: "The weak conjecture does not, however, imply the strong conjecture." "A does not imply B" technically means "A and not B" which, I'm sure, isn't what was meant. I~~'ll attempt to add~~ "in any evident way" which I think corrects it. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.59\|199.27.133.59]] 08:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)	+	This sentence is problematic: "The weak conjecture does not, however, imply the strong conjecture." "A does not imply B" technically means "A and not B" which, I'm sure, isn't what was meant. I added "in any evident way" which I think corrects it. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.59\|199.27.133.59]] 08:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:52, 10 July 2014
Line 30:		Line 30:
	"Therefore, the "extremely strong" conjecture could not possibly imply (however indirectly) the validity of the "extremely weak" conjecture, as it would if proved true."		"Therefore, the "extremely strong" conjecture could not possibly imply (however indirectly) the validity of the "extremely weak" conjecture, as it would if proved true."
	: It can be argued that since the "extremely strong" conjecture is obviously a contradiction (as in the logical sense, "a formula that's always false"), thereby, can imply any other formula. That is, if p is always false, then (p->q) for any q is always true. In this sense, if the "strong" version gets proved somehow, you get an inconsistent logical system, in which each and every formula can be proved as true, including those weaker forms. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.56\|108.162.215.56]] 13:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)		: It can be argued that since the "extremely strong" conjecture is obviously a contradiction (as in the logical sense, "a formula that's always false"), thereby, can imply any other formula. That is, if p is always false, then (p->q) for any q is always true. In this sense, if the "strong" version gets proved somehow, you get an inconsistent logical system, in which each and every formula can be proved as true, including those weaker forms. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.56\|108.162.215.56]] 13:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	This sentence is problematic: "The weak conjecture does not, however, imply the strong conjecture." "A does not imply B" technically means "A and not B" which, I'm sure, isn't what was meant. I'll attempt to add "in any evident way" which I think corrects it. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.59\|199.27.133.59]] 08:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:03, 9 February 2014
Line 27:		Line 27:
	;Moved from explain:		;Moved from explain:
	I disagree with this, as it is not incorrect to say that "numbers keep going towards seven" as there are an infinite number of numbers approaching 7. Also, the extremely weak conjecture could easily refer to numbers in the negative direction only. (Edited by some people.) --[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 18:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)		I disagree with this, as it is not incorrect to say that "numbers keep going towards seven" as there are an infinite number of numbers approaching 7. Also, the extremely weak conjecture could easily refer to numbers in the negative direction only. (Edited by some people.) --[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 18:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	"Therefore, the "extremely strong" conjecture could not possibly imply (however indirectly) the validity of the "extremely weak" conjecture, as it would if proved true."
		+	: It can be argued that since the "extremely strong" conjecture is obviously a contradiction (as in the logical sense, "a formula that's always false"), thereby, can imply any other formula. That is, if p is always false, then (p->q) for any q is always true. In this sense, if the "strong" version gets proved somehow, you get an inconsistent logical system, in which each and every formula can be proved as true, including those weaker forms. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.56\|108.162.215.56]] 13:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)