3 ms·

You've posted about this "waveform" idea before, and to be honest it seems like you are making a big deal out of the obvious fact that each newly found prime el

by theoh 11y ago

You've posted about this "waveform" idea before, and to be honest it seems like you are making a big deal out of the obvious fact that each newly found prime eliminates some possible greater numbers from the search by being a factor. With friendly intentions, I have to tell you that you risk sounding like a math crank.

goldenkey 11y ago
The waveform idea is simply to convey the sieve to non math folk in a more intriguing way. I dont see how talking about first differences of reduced residue sets of primorials is crank. Its being studied as we speak by PHD Fred Holt from UWashington... Wheres the issue with the method of mirroring and partitioning I discussed? Do you have something better than wont involve division? Also, there is a lot of merit in understanding how the sieve works because gap sequences work until the next prime squared. As the primes tend toward infinity, the sieve matches all primes. Its a valid way to study primes aside from the attacks on the Zeta function
- theoh 11y ago
  I am open to being convinced that you have new insights, but the reduced residue sets idea is not a magic bullet. If it was a magic bullet we would be having a different conversation. Basically I am encouraging you to discuss this in a way or in a context in which people will engage more readily with your ideas, either to accept or reject them. HN is not full of number theorists. Edit: This is a case where textual communication is really inadequate to determine the seriousness and, dare I say it, credibility of an interlocutor.
  - goldenkey 11y ago
    You can see Fred's papers here: http://arxiv.org/find/math/1/au:+Holt_F/0/1/0/all/0/1 http://arxiv.org/find/math/1/au:+Holt_F/0/1/0/all/0/1 You misunderstand me. I don't claim that the dRRS is a magic bullet. But it certainly isn't crank..

3 ms·

You've posted about this "waveform" idea before, and to be honest it seems like you are making a big deal out of the obvious fact that each newly found prime el

by theoh 11y ago

goldenkey 11y ago
The waveform idea is simply to convey the sieve to non math folk in a more intriguing way. I dont see how talking about first differences of reduced residue sets of primorials is crank. Its being studied as we speak by PHD Fred Holt from UWashington... Wheres the issue with the method of mirroring and partitioning I discussed? Do you have something better than wont involve division? Also, there is a lot of merit in understanding how the sieve works because gap sequences work until the next prime squared. As the primes tend toward infinity, the sieve matches all primes. Its a valid way to study primes aside from the attacks on the Zeta function
- theoh 11y ago
  I am open to being convinced that you have new insights, but the reduced residue sets idea is not a magic bullet. If it was a magic bullet we would be having a different conversation. Basically I am encouraging you to discuss this in a way or in a context in which people will engage more readily with your ideas, either to accept or reject them. HN is not full of number theorists. Edit: This is a case where textual communication is really inadequate to determine the seriousness and, dare I say it, credibility of an interlocutor.
  - goldenkey 11y ago
    You can see Fred's papers here: http://arxiv.org/find/math/1/au:+Holt_F/0/1/0/all/0/1 http://arxiv.org/find/math/1/au:+Holt_F/0/1/0/all/0/1 You misunderstand me. I don't claim that the dRRS is a magic bullet. But it certainly isn't crank..