From: "Blake Buzzini" <bab282@psu.edu>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 02:33:08 +0800
To: "CypherPunks" <cypherpunks@Algebra.COM>
Subject: RE: Goldbach's Conjecture (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199811201515.JAA10514@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <002901be14ac$575bd880$88e3ba92@ruby-river>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



A group is only as useful as the special and similar properties items in the
group share. Primes are no exception. One isn't included in the set of
primes because it has special properties beyond or inconsistent with the
properties of primes. As to the notion that implementing your brilliant idea
"would [perhaps] provide a more consistent base and just maybe some of the
extant problems in number theory might become solvable in other ways", all I
can say is Puhleez... In Gauss, Fermat, Wiles, et al versus Jim Choate, I'd
put my money on the former.

Sorry for the rude response, I just don't like being sent hostile messages
to my personal email account.

Blake Buzzini, PSU

-----Original Message-----
From:	owner-cypherpunks@Algebra.COM [mailto:owner-cypherpunks@Algebra.COM]
On Behalf Of Jim Choate
Sent:	Friday, November 20, 1998 10:16 AM
To:	Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer
Subject:	RE: Goldbach's Conjecture (fwd)


Forwarded message:

> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 09:41:01 -0600
> From: Mark Hahn <mhahn@tcbtech.com>
> Subject: RE: Goldbach's Conjecture (fwd)

> At 09:39 PM 11/19/98 -0600, Jim Choate instructed:
> >It's interesting that Fermat doesn't mention that the only prime that can
> >use two as a factor is 4. And you can't factor 2 at all since we
eliminate
> >1 as a potential candidate (another issue of symmetry breaking simply so
we
> >don't have to write '....works for every prime but 1' on all our
theorems).
>
> I thought I was following along until I got here, and got very lost. First
> question: I think the first sentence implies 4 is prime, so I must have
> the emphasis wrong.

No, I made a typo. I got so focused on primes last nite that I seem to have
typed it in instead of 'even'. I didn't notice it when I saw it posted to
the list. My mistake, sorry for the confusion.

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
intention was to get a copy of Doug Lenat's EURISKO theorem proving program
and change the definition of prime in its database and note the results
(after converting it to Perl from LISP). What started all that is that I'm
slowly going through 'An Introduction to Algebraic Structures' by J. Landin
(Dover) creating a cheat-sheet of number theory that eventualy I hope to
post
on my webpage for reference.


    ____________________________________________________________________

            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 --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------