plutonium.archime...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >
> > The reason that "multiply the lot add 1" works is that it is merely
> > another form
> > of primes such as 2k+1 or 2k-1. One form that does not work is 2k for
> > 2 is the
> > only even prime number. Twin Primes are of the form k,k+2 such as 3,5
> > but there
> > are primes of form k,k+2,k+4 such as 3,5,7.
> >
>
> The idea here is that most forms of primes are infinite.
>
> Now that raises an interesting question about some alleged forms under
> Natural-Numbers = finite integers are shown to be finite. I believe I
> remember
> this in connection with Whitehead over a discussion of the Riemann
> Hypothesis
> where he imagines that RH is false because of some forms of prime
> slowly and
> gradually end up as finite. I do not remember what form of primes it
> was.
>
> The reason I bring this issue up, is because, under Natural-Numbers =
> infinite
> integers, I suspect those forms that were thought to and proven as
> finite, are, now,
> once again truly infinite sets of primes.
>
> I also remember trying to graph that sequence of primes to try to get
> a sense of
> how they stopped, never to continue. But in infinite integers I want
> to reraise that issue
> for I have the sneaky suspicion that such a form was really infinite
> after all.
>
> Now is the Riemann Hypothesis true or false? I cannot remember clearly
> what conclusions
> I had last drawn on RH, and my problem stemming from too many irons in
> the fire. I believe
> I ended up last time concluding RH was false. But I like to reenter
> that analysis the next time
> by comparing RH with e^(i x 2pi) = 1. Can we relate strictly RH with
> Euler's identity? If we can
> do so, then the failure of Euler's Identity is the fact that we have e
> and pi belong to a different geometry
> than does i. And realizing that, we realize that the Euler Identity is
> nothing more than
> n^0 = 1 and where i has the value of 0 in NonEuclidean geomety
> accounting for the Euler
> Identity.
>
Well, people of the future can actually eyewitness the aging process
of Mr. Archimedes Plutonium.
I would never have made such a mistake of above in my 40s or younger
decades, but here as I
am now 58 years of age, I am slipping in memory. It was Littlewood, so
how could I have ever
suggested it was Whitehead? Memory is going to start to fail on all of
us, and for me, it is obvious
that at 58, that process has begun. So it is a good thing that I am in
the midst of writing all these books
before my memory gets so bad that it impinges on my organizing of all
my past thoughts.
I believe we can prove the Riemann Hypothesis is false by a
paralleling of primes of form where they
are primes and an infinite set, but which they are so spread far apart
that we only find the first such
prime of that form that we would believe they are like the Riemann
Hypothesis that all the nontrivial
zeros are on the 1/2 Real line.
Now in the Infinite Integers = Natural-Numbers, the primes are as
dense as the Natural Numbers get into
.....3333333 or say .......6767676767 as they are dense in the interval
of 0 to 10.
In fact the prime numbers ......141312111098765432109 and ......
141312111098765432111 and
......141312111098765432113 and ......141312111098765432117
and ......141312111098765432119
has five primes in a interval of equal length to 0-10 where there are
only four primes 2,3,5,7 in 0-10.
Now Littlewood said there was really no evidence to believe the
Riemann Hypothesis is true and that
there is stronger evidence to believe it is false and he used an
example of a funtion, which I was unable
to locate.
Now the Mersenne Primes are primes of form 2^k-1 where the k is prime
also. If my memory is correct
we have found only 45 such Mersenne primes.
Now, does the search for Mersenne primes remind us of the Riemann
Hypothesis? Yes indeed in that
we believe those primes are well behaved that the nontrivial zeroes
remain on the 1/2 Real line.
And since 2^k-1 has only 45 Mersenne primes, what about primes of the
form (2^k-1)^2^k-1?
In other words, what about primes of the form of Mersenne primes
raised to the power of Mersenne
primes? Does this not parallel the Riemann Hypothesis? Of course it
does, for you could travel
what seems like an eternity and never come upon such a prime, yet they
are infinite.
Likewise, the first nontrivial zero of the Riemann Hypothesis starts
at such a huge distance from
0 that we are lulled into believing RH is true when in fact it is
false.
So a parallel way of proving RH is false, is the proving that Mersenne
Primes raised to the power
of Mersenne Primes is an infinite set of primes. This is
straightforward proof in AP-adics by
using the Champernownes number as rootstock and grafting onto the
rightwards end a prime
such as .....11110001110011013.
And to prove Riemann Hypothesis is false is easily done via geometry.
The Natural Numbers lie
on a curved surface of elliptic geometry, not Euclidean geometry where
the 1/2 Real line is thought
to be a straight line. The Natural Numbers bend and curve around in
Space and come back to a zero
point. So the Riemann Hypothesis crumbles apart as nonsense as to how
the primes of the Natural
Numbers are located on a spherical surface.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
