 # ---当今中国数学超级难题

## 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?