Acme

I have it on good authority that Acme loves you like a brother. Edit: This is not an edit.

More meaningless drivel. You are mistaken. Your welcome. If you had read the thread you would know. No duh.

Edits have a time limit, though I have never timed it. Within an hour maybe? More frustrating to me is that if one makes the second post just recommended and that it is within a short period of time, the second post is appended to one's last post and so it is effectively editing the last post. This is most troublesome when there is a flurry of exchanges. I'm OK with the editing time period as long as I know about it, but I don't care for that appending business.

Your implication was that Primes are not randomly distributed. That's drivel of the meaningless kind. Please don't presume to instruct me on how to discuss things. As I told Peter, the lack is your understanding; not my explication. Ja, yes it is. No. I see someguy1 is banned so there certainly will be no citation that I asked him for on the Twin-Prime breakthrough he invoked. But as John mentioned Terrence Tao and Terrence was a part of the team working on that breakthrough I will provide my own citation. NOTE!: That work neither proves the Twin-Prime Conjecture nor does it show Primes are anything but randomly distributed. I'm a little pressed for time so I will just give a link for now and save quoting the pertinent parts for later. Together and Alone, Closing the Prime Gap

That is meaningless drivel. A tautology.

Father knows best. I was more going for 'what is it you want to discuss?' with my curt retort.

So what?

An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish: A Hilarious Catalogue of Organized and Individual Stupidity by Bertrand Russell

Anything yet imat? I did some reading and as your structure has an inside and outside surface and seemingly 1 boundary I'm not sure it is properly called 'Möbius'. I'm sure ajb could expound on the correct topological nomenclature. I also found the general rules for the results of making the cut on bands of different number of twists. Mobius band @ Wiki

It's not that I or others can't explain it, it's that you can't understand it. How gracious of you to grant your approval. Again, why should it matter what you think? That's rhetorical; it doesn't matter. In the big scheme of things, no one cares what you think.

J'ai couru à travers cette citation de Godel sur l'intuition; profiter. L'intuition n'est pas la preuve; c'est le contraire de la preuve. Nous n'analysons pas l'intuition de voir une preuve mais par l'intuition nous voyons quelque chose sans preuve. ~ Kurt Gödel source

So what if laypeople don't understand? Mathematicians do understand and as it's mathematicians that do math, that is all that matters.

Not to dissuade Endy or imatfaal from making their own replies, but both these statements are meaningless to a mathematician in regard to Primes in spite of their use of mathematical terms. Moreover, the implication that every function has an inverse is false. In post #13 I gave a quote by Euler and imatfaal repeated it in post #33. So starting again with that quote at Wolfram Mathworld, I quote some of their material germane to this discussion. The article also includes discussion of why 1 is not considered a Prime. Bolding and underlining in the below quote is mine. Prime Number @ Wolfram Mathworld Peoples' unease with these Prime features and characteristics -whether mathematicians or no- is inconsequential to the veracity of these features and characteristics, notwithstanding further whining.

Yes & yes. Well, imatfaal restated my position so I didn't see the need to re-re-state my position. That's the best you can do? Possibly. Citation on the breakthrough please, and a qualification on how it shows that Primes are not randomly distributed.

Sure glad someguy on the internet POSSIBLY straightened things out.

It would have helped if you had read it. What you are describing is finding primes which no one is contending can't be done. Again, there is no equation that generates Primes in the sense that there are equations that generate points on a parabola for example. In spite of your quibbling over imatfaal's wording, mathematicians know exactly what he means just as we know exactly what 'Primes are randomly distributed' means. Whether anyone else doesn't understand or agree is irrelevant.

If you don't see by now then so be it. ... If it makes no difference to you then quit complaining here.

As imatfaal pointed out, Primes are random because there is no rule that produces them. For example if I ask you to give the 34556992975862856962656923th Prime there is no [known] way to do it except to start from 2 and check every number for primality and tally found Primes 'til you find the one I asked for. As to 1 being Prime, we already covered that. I don't understand why you are arguing. Mathematicians have no problem with saying Primes are randomly distributed, so your feelings about it really don't matter. If you don't want to call them random, then don't call them random.

Therein lies the rub. There is a grand hypocrisy in all this, and while it may serve a useful purpose in maintaining the appearance of civility here, the Emperor has no clothes. As I said early on, I don't envy the staff & their pickle. G'donya for taking up the challenge.

Chaos favors the prepared imagination.

It sounds sketchy to me, but I haven't studied neurons enough to really say. Here's an introductory page on memory that you can peruse for current thinking on the matter. >> The Human Memory: What it is, How it works, and how it can go wrong You know what I'm going to say, right? Well, here it is; read the book and judge for yourself. I don't get the 'looked as if' bit, but no matter. No, the two do not need to be self-induced for my analogy. I don't quite get that, but it may be the language barrier. Anyway, human intelligence is an entirely different matter than intuition and probably better left to a thread on that specific topic. I would however agree that hazards affect behavior. Adieu.

Have you looked for such a study?

The 17% is all drivers who said they made obscene gestures. The MotherJones link -Is an armed society a polite society? Guns and road rage has another link to the full study which is presumably where the 44% is and presumably it means 44% of armed drivers. Unfortunately that study is pay-only. >> Is an armed society a polite society? Guns and road rage The 77% is referring to 77% of drivers who have guns being more likely to follow aggressively, and again this statistic is likely in the pay-only full version of the study.

The links are embedded in the article; they are the underlined terms. Hover your cursor over them and click to go to the source.

Yes, but space is always at a premium for a popular news source. They at least provided sources. Those are all valid observations and anyone interested in pursuing them has at least a starting point.