• WAP手机版 保存到桌面  加入收藏  设为首页
文化时评

没法坐实佘赤求的哥猜证明错误就无罪而诛Ifyoucan’tsitdownandaskforhelp,youcan’tprove

时间:2019-10-24 16:38:41   作者:科学革命家   来源:歆竹苑文学网   阅读:2482   评论:0
内容摘要:---当今中国数学超级难题佘赤求发表了《哥德巴赫猜想证明及其成败原因》,其论证原理方法如下。论证战略方案筛除2n=a+b的集合中所有a、b同时和分别为合数和1的式子,⇒有余式,哥德巴赫猜想成立。试问,有可能错吗?论证战术办法假定2n的小于2n的平方根的质因数只有2能够同时整除a和......

---当今中国数学超级难题

       佘赤求发表了《哥德巴赫猜想证明及其成败原因》,其论证原理方法如下。

论证战略方案 筛除2n=a+b的集合中所有a、b同时和分别为合数和1的式子,⇒有余式,哥德巴赫猜想成立。

       试问,有可能错吗?

论证战术办法 假定2n的小于2n的平方根的质因数只有2能够同时整除a和b,其余式子再无两合数和⇒

总式数-合数和式数下限-非合数和式数上限⇒素数和式数下限

      试问,有可能错吗?

计算方法 根据合数性质⇒a、b同时和分别为合数的式子,应用乘法分配律运算分别减去它们⇒

G(1+1)=[···[「n/2」﹒1/3]﹒3/5]···(pr-1-2)/pr-1](pr-2)/pr]-s+b'-1 (或0)

           ≮  [...[「n/2」﹒1/3]﹒3/5]...(pr-1-2)/pr-1](pr-2)/pr]-s-1

(Pr表2n方根内最大质数。b'表不该减去的式子数目。s表取整运算误差。每次舍成整数⇒ [r/2 ]s, 0≤ b'≤ r-1,0表示1所在式另一数是合数)

       加大保险求下限,pr不小时可不管s大小减去其上限,再视b'为0 ⇒G(1+1)的下限。

       试问,有可能错吗?

决定这个公式生死的“细节” 该式存在以下质疑猜想不成立的问题。因此,数学界不认可。

1、按公式计算,某些大偶数的“答案数”大于实际,或大于小偶数的“答案数”,而实际比小偶数少,即“波动”反例。此前,解决这个问题就是做无米之炊,有待于数学基础理论知识进步发展。

2、不管多么小,公式存在(前面已解决的)取整计算误差。

      试问,有可能错吗?

化解波动策略 先找米下锅,创新发现基础理论知识。推证“自然数N值区间定理”“连续合数定理”⇒数列2n=r个由素数统辖的“2n值区间”。

       再“特别限定”取每个“2n值区间”的下限prpr+1代入公式计算⇒G(1+1)的“区间下限”。

       试问,有可能错吗?

      公式中,相邻两因数后一个数的分子或=或大于远远大于前一个数的分母,pr小于n⇒结论 

        每个“2n值区间”的“1+1”式数的“区间下限”不仅不小于1,而且r稍大就不少于该偶数平方根内的奇素数个数,r越大还 pr的一半(甚至于大于pr?)。有合数和1的式子已经减完⇒同一区间的偶数的“1+1”式数比其区间下限只多不少⇒作者不仅证明了“1+1”,而且大大改进了该猜想、将其逼近于实际。

       试问,有可能错吗? 谁能坐实论证错误,否认佘赤求大功告成?!

       然而,某些判官判斩论文的理由令人啼笑皆非。

       其一 作者学历太低,文章短小,不可能解答个世界难题。作者认为这类意见与评判论证错误风马牛不相及。

       其二 “两个定理”是大家都知道的常识,没有学术价值意义。“区间下限”设定莫名其妙(有判官据此篡改公式后计算举’反例’)。作者认为这类意见赤裸裸否定创新发现。

       其三 作者说prpr至其相邻后一个素数平方之间的偶数,有一个共同的各自平方根内的最大素数pr错了,它们的公共素因子是2。作者认为这类意见纯粹是指驴为马栽赃陷害。

       除此而外,目前还没有任何其它否定意见。

       其四 作者当面或书面请教了几乎所有的当今数学院士。仅仅有一位院士说,你的论文要获得认可很难。另一位院士说,别说人家错误自树敌人。其他院士不开金口。

       其五 作者上书科技主管部门请求鉴定,泥牛入海无消息。

       其六 也有判官认定作者大功告成。可惜他们没有终审裁判权。“1+2”权威们的“共识”早已颁令,惟有他们拥有生杀予夺权。

       尊敬的看官,您认为哥猜是世界难题吗,鉴定哥猜答案对错是不是比攻克哥猜还难?这是当今中国数学超级难题吗,有解吗?

--- Today's Chinese mathematics super puzzle

       He has asked for the proof of Goldbach's conjecture and its reasons for success or failure. The principle of argumentation is as follows.

Demonstrating the strategic plan Screening out all the a and b in the set of 2n=a+b at the same time and the formulas of the sum and the respectively, and there is more than one, and the Goldbach conjecture is established.

       I ask, is it possible to be wrong?

Demonstrate tactical approach Assuming that 2n is less than 2n square root, the prime factor is only 2, which can divide a and b at the same time, and the rest of the equations have no more than two sums.

The total number of formulas - the number of sums and the lower limit of the number of formulas - the upper limit of the number of non-combination numbers and the lower limit of the number of formulas

      I ask, is it possible to be wrong?

The calculation method is based on the combination of the properties ⇒a, b and the equations that are combined, respectively, and the multiplication law is applied to subtract them.

G(1+1)=[···["n/2". 1/3]. 3/5]···(pr-1-2)/pr-1](pr-2)/pr]-s+b'-1 (or 0)

           ≮ [...["n/2". 1/3]. 3/5]...(pr-1-2)/pr-1](pr-2)/pr]-s-1

(The maximum prime number in the 2n square root of the Pr table. b' indicates the number of equations to be subtracted. The s table takes the integer operation error. Each time rounds to an integer ⇒ [r/2 ]s, 0 ≤ b' ≤ r-1 , 0 means that 1 is another number is a composite number)

       Increase the lower limit of insurance, pr is not small, regardless of the size of s minus its upper limit, and then consider b' as the lower limit of 0 ⇒ G (1 + 1).

       I ask, is it possible to be wrong?

The "details" that determine the life and death of this formula have the following questions that doubt the conjecture. Therefore, the mathematics community does not recognize it.

1. According to the formula, the "number of answers" of some large even numbers is larger than the actual, or larger than the "number of answers" of the small even number, and the actual number is less than the small even number, that is, the "fluctuation" counterexample. Previously, to solve this problem is to do without the shackles of rice, and to advance the development of basic knowledge of mathematics.

2. No matter how small, the formula has (previously solved) rounding calculation error.

      I ask, is it possible to be wrong?

Resolve the volatility strategy First find the rice pot, and discover the basic theoretical knowledge. It is proved that the "N-value interval theorem of natural number" and the "continuous joint theorem" are 2n = r "2n-value interval" governed by prime numbers.

       Further, "specially limited" takes the lower limit prpr+1 of each "2n value interval" into the formula to calculate the "period lower limit" of ⇒G(1+1).

       I ask, is it possible to be wrong?

      In the formula, the numerator of the next two factors or = or greater than the denominator of the previous number, pr is less than n⇒ conclusion

        The "lower limit of the interval" of the "1+1" formula of each "2n value interval" is not only not less than 1, but r is slightly larger than the number of odd prime numbers in the square root of the even number, and the larger r is half of pr (even greater than pr?). The "1+1" formula with the number of conjunctions and the formula of 1 has been reduced by the even interval of the same interval. The author only proves "1+1" and greatly improves the conjecture. Approach it to reality.

       I ask, is it possible to be wrong? Who can sit down and argue with the mistakes and deny that the red is doing a good job? !

       However, the reasons for some judges to judge the paper are ridiculous.

       One of the authors' academic qualifications is too low, and the article is short and it is impossible to answer a world problem. The author believes that such opinions are inconsistent with the judgment arguments.

       The second two theorems are common sense that everyone knows and have no academic value. The “lower limit of the interval” is inexplicable (there is a counter-example after the judge has falsified the formula accordingly). The author believes that such opinions are naked to deny innovation discoveries.

       The authors say that the prpr to an even number between the squares of a prime after its neighbors has a common maximum prime pr in the respective square roots, and their common prime factor is 2. The author believes that such opinions are purely meant to be framed by horses.

       Other than that, there are no other negative opinions.

       The four authors consulted almost all of today's academicians in person or in writing. Only one academician said that it is difficult for your paper to be recognized. Another academician said, don't say that people are wrong with their own enemies. Other academicians do not open the gold mouth.

       The five authors of the science and technology administration department requested the identification, and there was no news of the mud cows entering the sea.

       Six of them also judged that the author was done. Unfortunately, they do not have the final jurisdiction. The "consensus" of the "1+2" authorities has already issued orders, but they have the right to kill and seize power.

       Dear clerk, do you think that Gu guess is a world problem? Is it difficult to identify whether the answer is wrong or not? Is this a super problem in Chinese mathematics today, is there a solution?



标签:中国数学    超级难题  
相关评论
站长QQ:点击这里给我发消息 投稿邮箱:xinzhuyuan@vip.qq.com 版权所有:歆竹苑文学网,未经书面许可,不得转载。
本站所刊登的各种新闻,信息和各种专栏资料,均为歆竹苑文学网版权所有,部分作品由用户提供,如有侵权,请及时联系删除,本站所做之广告均属其个人行为,与本站立场无关。网站广告投放(+86)0857-8332908 15086320111

ICP备:黔ICP备12003314号-1 贵公网安备号:52050202001314号