no yea that speaks for something else I exfoliate your approach away from omnidimensional illiteracy by means of certain parts of the insoluble solution to the equations mentioned by you in several uncertain terms. There's a 37.98% chance I may consider contemplating the provisional purchase of your book. So that's excellent. My neck is a little stiff.
Anyone got a Degree in Mathematics / Number theory and willing to help Student- Legendre Conjecture)
hi,
PhD maths x polytechnique 2015, and this problem is almost impossible :)
PhD maths x polytechnique 2015, and this problem is almost impossible :)
ho,
u no agree with Alberrez Unpierrez dat dieu does not dice concombres! fascination controllee 2015! vive la jenaysaykwa! en garde! wat? cowflat!
u no agree with Alberrez Unpierrez dat dieu does not dice concombres! fascination controllee 2015! vive la jenaysaykwa! en garde! wat? cowflat!
#21 "Insoluble" means "unable to be dissolved in water, not "unsolvable." @rayquazar
i know
@howchessYT here's why I think he's a troll:
"If u can always add the number one, it means that more or less all numbers are the same." False. What would prevent me from saying, "if you can always multiply by the number two, [your system] it means that more or less all numbers are the same?"
"Study Q from 0 to 1." Please define your variables.
"I am making all this up, I have no clue about this, its just common sense, it comes from Newton and Barrow and Leibtniz." So did you or did you not make it up? Also, associating Calculus with what you said just before with common sense is too much for me.
"prime numbers do not exist." Really? OK, you qualify that statement by saying that prime numbers are the leftover numbers that don't fit into other categories and don't have a true category, which is false. Prime numbers are all natural numbers divisible only by themselves and one.
"numbers go through squares, the plus one addition of natural numbers is misleading, it does not teach about the rate of the growth about of the feel of the numbers." So the Legendre conjecture is wrong because it doesn't "feel" right?
"U need to feel the rate"
"if u feel the rate of the numbers very well then u can create new definitions." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
"Because the plus one is almost arbitrary" Is it? And why "almost"?
"U know what I mean..." Nope. "...the plus one, is like a rule that has been enforced into the numbers, a timing, a constant timing but that already creates contradictions with its inner frecuencies, because u are mixing frequencies with some monotonus tone addition, which is in fact a bad frequency." Numbers have inner frequencies that are negatively affected when placed in order?
"So what makes the prime number?
The number one, as simple as that, its the number one that contains all the frequencies, thats why I told u to look into Q, and not into N."
Only infinity would contain all possible factors, which I assume is what you mean by frequencies. Also, please define your variables.
"Because natural numbers dont exist, u dont have a choice there." Tell that to any mathematician ever.
"u just cant say i am going to use natural numbers and I am not going to use rational numbers" True. But no one says that. Natural numbers are a subset of the larger set of rational numbers. All natural numbers are rational, but not all rational numbers are natural.
That being said, I still love reading the posts.
"If u can always add the number one, it means that more or less all numbers are the same." False. What would prevent me from saying, "if you can always multiply by the number two, [your system] it means that more or less all numbers are the same?"
"Study Q from 0 to 1." Please define your variables.
"I am making all this up, I have no clue about this, its just common sense, it comes from Newton and Barrow and Leibtniz." So did you or did you not make it up? Also, associating Calculus with what you said just before with common sense is too much for me.
"prime numbers do not exist." Really? OK, you qualify that statement by saying that prime numbers are the leftover numbers that don't fit into other categories and don't have a true category, which is false. Prime numbers are all natural numbers divisible only by themselves and one.
"numbers go through squares, the plus one addition of natural numbers is misleading, it does not teach about the rate of the growth about of the feel of the numbers." So the Legendre conjecture is wrong because it doesn't "feel" right?
"U need to feel the rate"
"if u feel the rate of the numbers very well then u can create new definitions." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
"Because the plus one is almost arbitrary" Is it? And why "almost"?
"U know what I mean..." Nope. "...the plus one, is like a rule that has been enforced into the numbers, a timing, a constant timing but that already creates contradictions with its inner frecuencies, because u are mixing frequencies with some monotonus tone addition, which is in fact a bad frequency." Numbers have inner frequencies that are negatively affected when placed in order?
"So what makes the prime number?
The number one, as simple as that, its the number one that contains all the frequencies, thats why I told u to look into Q, and not into N."
Only infinity would contain all possible factors, which I assume is what you mean by frequencies. Also, please define your variables.
"Because natural numbers dont exist, u dont have a choice there." Tell that to any mathematician ever.
"u just cant say i am going to use natural numbers and I am not going to use rational numbers" True. But no one says that. Natural numbers are a subset of the larger set of rational numbers. All natural numbers are rational, but not all rational numbers are natural.
That being said, I still love reading the posts.
*yawns*
u like somun hoo say a poem iz stui cuz de goyl's blue eyes are no glacier lakes.
go play wit ur abacus, R2D2!
u like somun hoo say a poem iz stui cuz de goyl's blue eyes are no glacier lakes.
go play wit ur abacus, R2D2!
Excpept we are supposed to be talking about math, not poetry. I appreciate exagerative metaphors, but not in math.
Excpept we r not supposed to do anything. "exagerative metaphors"? Now you actually made me laugh, one never ceases to be amazed.
furthermore,
math is incomplete. to say "more", metamathematically, sub, super, supramathematically, there's only the artistic device. don't "blame" Puzzletraining for YOUR lack of imagination. You run a stuffy dead-known program, puzzle creates something worth reading.
furthermore,
math is incomplete. to say "more", metamathematically, sub, super, supramathematically, there's only the artistic device. don't "blame" Puzzletraining for YOUR lack of imagination. You run a stuffy dead-known program, puzzle creates something worth reading.
Maybe but maybe is on Q, now u move Q into N or into binary if u wish and u would have resolved the conjecture, but which one,
because the number one was always changing right?
because the number one was always changing right?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.