[AntonioLao]

About the lattice theory of mathematics, I have no idea what it is about. One thing I'm sure of is that someone invented it to solve math problems. So, in the same vain, you might have to invent your own special theory for proving Goldbach conjecture. This could take a lifetime but if you are lucky, a year?

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao About the lattice theory of mathematics, I have no idea what it is about. One thing I'm sure of is that someone invented it to solve math problems. So, in the same vain, you might have to invent your own special theory for proving Goldbach conjecture. This could take a lifetime but if you are lucky, a year?

WHAT!?

How can we talk about luck and mathematics in a same discussion? They cannot liv with the other. Anyway, probably it's true that I'll have to invent my own math to prove goldbach's conjecture. But, what is that math? And, how can a part of math be invented? This last question is the one that makes me think a lot. How do mathematicians decide to make parts of maths how they are, only how they are? Why not with a slight change? How can we determine this? Is it the problem we are fighting, that determines this development?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE How can we talk about luck and mathematics in a same discussion?

The meaning of 'luck' in this context is the same as serendipitous discovery.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao The meaning of 'luck' in this context is the same as serendipitous discovery.

The term you've just used was introduced by writer Horace Walpole in 1754 who was trying to describe his own creations. I read a short paper about the occurance of serendipitous discoveries in science. It gave some good examples: penicillin, pluto's loon, velcro, vulcanisation, law of gravity, electric batery, fotography, electromagnetism....But if you see, none, not a single one of them is a proof of a conjecture/hypothesis/theorem of mathematics.

When Andrew Wiles published his proof of Fermat's Last Theorem an error was found and he was for a year trying to solve it. When many were starting to loos the hope that they had gained believing that this was the real proof, Wiles remembered something and rapidly started to work on it, and solved the error. Was it serendipial phenomena? I doubt it; it was his mind that came across it, although maybe by luck according to him, subconscioussly, what he had been doing lead him to it.

So, bascially, I won't wake up one morning having dreamed the proof of goldbachs' conjecture, and it being correct.

Today, going through the wikipedia mathematical pages, I have learned about the different generating functions. This will help me in using taylor series. Tomorrow I'll start to read about Weierstass's eliptic function, which is another important tool in my proof. Then I will go and read books on the complex plane and complex anaylisis. This last part will be the mayor part of my adquisition of knowledge for the proof.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE my adquisition of knowledge for the proof.

So, for you arriving at the proof is thru independent hard works and not by serendipity. FYI, not many people can go through this backbreaking task. It is admirable that you can be successful without becoming a nutcase.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao So, for you arriving at the proof is thru independent hard works and not by serendipity. FYI, not many people can go through this backbreaking task. It is admirable that you can be successful without becoming a nutcase.

LOL!

I know. My teacher told me once that a good friend of his wife has a brother that studied physics and mathematics at the same time, and did it all in three years. Then he said it wasn't enough and studied philsophy, got a Ph.D in 2 years. This means he was a physicist, mathemaician and philosopher at the age of 23. There was only a slight problem: He was now crazy. The last time my teacher saw him, he was in a psichiatric hospital, belieivng there were cameras all around the city that entered the subconsciousness of everybody and told them what to do, and they told him to kill people, but he resisted....It's quite trilling.

[AntonioLao]

Study for the sake of study cannot be rewarding for there are many things that can be studied. Study with a purpose can be rewarding. Purpose can be the same as solving a challenging problem like finding a new source of energy. The reward is to be the first to find the solutions. Maybe not all of the solutions but some particular solutions.

[Guille]

The mathematician to whom's conjecture we've dedicated thsi thread, died, according the the really usefull site http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...files/Now.html today, 20th of december, but exactly 241 years ago, in 1764. Tomorrow I'll post some part sI've done which are small areas of the proof I'm working on of the conjecture. It's very hard mathematics, specially hard to get out of where one has put himself without noticing. I'm too tierd to post it now and explaining it, for it is complex and needs explenation.

Today is also the 116 years ago that Hubble was born. And Benoit Mandelbrot (co-founder of chaos theory, discoverer of fractal mathematics) is today 81 years old.

[AntonioLao]

the number 241 might be hiding the secret to proving the conjecture for its theoremhood.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao the number 241 might be hiding the secret to proving the conjecture for its theoremhood.

Well, one can do a lot of arithmetic with three numbers. For example, 2+1=3 and 4-3=1. Also, 2^2=4, 4-(1+2)=1^2. Also, 4^2=16, the 1, and he 6=4+2, or it's 2+1=3 and 3x4=12, adding 4=16.

But I think there is much more complexity in it all. If you go to read the posts I have done recently on the thread you started about the complex plane, I think it's called "Crossing dimensions by W_____ 's plane" it was a name of a mathematician. There I write something I thik is the true way to prove the conjecture. And nopw with the information I have from combinatorics, I'm getting to the point.