I would like my question, "A new approach to the Goldbach conjecture", to be reopened. The reasons presented for closing do not make sense. Usually you are helpful and improve my questions. Someone has always edited my questions. I feel that this question is very important and misunderstood. For this reason please re-open the question so that we can have further discussion of the material presented.
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
4
-
8$\begingroup$ I believe your question violates the section "What kind of questions should I not ask here?" of the FAQ. In particular, "if your motivation for asking the question is “I would like to participate in a discussion about ______”, then you should not be asking here." $\endgroup$– user856Commented Jan 3, 2012 at 1:47
-
6$\begingroup$ As far as I can tell, there is no question in that post that is suitable to this site. Instead, you present an oration, and issue your "conclusions" on the basis of your oration, as well as possibly "suggesting" that others help you (do for you?) do work that you think is interesting. That is all good and well for your blog, not for this site. Issuing statements like "I propose that from now on Goldbach's conjecture should be renamed...", for example, are not "questions". I fully support the "Not a real question" closing. $\endgroup$– Arturo MagidinCommented Jan 3, 2012 at 1:50
-
6$\begingroup$ Dear Vassili, Your question simply recalls (or perhaps rediscovers) and illustrates a known heuristic for estimating the number of solutions to the Goldbach equation $p_1 + p_2 = N$. It doesn't raise any question about that heuristic, and also contains several grandiose and unwarranted claims. It's not reasonable to expect that it will be reopened. Perhaps you could read the wikipedia article, which discusses many substantial results towards Goldbach, including some that build on the kind of ideas present in your question, and ask ... $\endgroup$– Matt ECommented Jan 3, 2012 at 3:43
-
5$\begingroup$ ... about some of those results and methods. This would be more appropriate for this site. (Especially if you make some effort to learn something about these results and methods yourself first.) Regards, $\endgroup$– Matt ECommented Jan 3, 2012 at 3:44
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
9
I have just read what you wrote.
A few observations: (i) Math.SE is quite not the place to propose the renaming of century-old conjectures. (ii) Your second conclusion is a magnificent non sequitur. (iii) I have no idea what your third point is supposed to be.
The main problem with what you wrote is that it is not a question, and this site is devoted to questions. You are of course free to be pursue the line of investigation you sketched in what you wrote, and we will all celebrate your success if it gets to that, but it should be quite obvious from reading essentially all questions and answers present in this site, and the FAQ, that this is not the correct place to propose research lines.
As far as I can see, there is no reason to reopen the question.
answered Jan 3, 2012 at 1:56
-
$\begingroup$ It is sad none of you has presented a single mathematical argument.The conclusion of the material is we obtain infinite presentations for each even number. The only way to counter argue that is to say some even numbers have infinite presentations and some others not at all and live with this assumption. Is that sufficient reason to reopen the question? $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 3, 2012 at 2:51
-
11$\begingroup$ @Vassili: Appropriateness of your post for this website is not a mathematical problem, and therefore no mathematical argument will be given for closing it. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 3, 2012 at 3:15
-
$\begingroup$ Now I know your way of thinking it is very sad for me anyway to post the material on this site. I hope some of you some day will meet a true mathematician and explain to him your type of logic. If someone had given me mathematical arguments I would had crushed him. This concludes my response to all of you. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 3, 2012 at 3:41
-
11$\begingroup$ @Vassili: Dear Vassili, As I have indicated in various comments, known results in the direction of Goldbach take the ideas of your question (among other things) and push them much much further than you have. You can learn something about this from the wikipedia article on Goldbach. This is a mathematical reason for not reopening your question: it doesn't take into account what is already known about the Goldbach problem, and (in large part because of this) makes various unwarranted claims about its own importance, and the relative ... $\endgroup$– Matt ECommented Jan 3, 2012 at 3:48
-
11$\begingroup$ ... state of affairs with regard to Goldbach and people's understanding thereof. Regards, $\endgroup$– Matt ECommented Jan 3, 2012 at 3:48
-
3$\begingroup$ @Vassili: My statement that a mathematical reason will not be given was incorrect. To clarify, what I meant was that suitability of a post for this particular website depends on more than just the mathematics involved. The main reason cited for closing your post was that it is not a question; any other post that is not a question could also be closed for this reason, regardless of the mathematical content. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 3, 2012 at 3:54
-
1$\begingroup$ @Jonas: Dear Jonas, Sorry, I didn't mean to undercut your statement, which was quite correct. It's rather that Vassili was reacting as if his question was closed on a technicality rather than on its merits, so I wanted to address its merits as well. Regards, $\endgroup$– Matt ECommented Jan 3, 2012 at 3:59
-
3$\begingroup$ @Jonas: P.S. I should add that I didn't anticipate that his sole reason for wanting an argument on the merits was in order to "crush" the person putting forward the argument. Perhaps I should have though ... . $\endgroup$– Matt ECommented Jan 3, 2012 at 4:00
-
2$\begingroup$ @Matt: Dear Matt, There is no need to apologize. I never suspected that your helpful comment was meant to undercut my statement. I guess I couldn't resist mentioning the technicality, and then I hoped that elaborating on my prior comment would help clarify what I had originally intended. Sincerely, $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 3, 2012 at 4:05