Unity+

Inventing theory involves looking at something from a completely different perspective. Ask questions about everything in Mathematics. Take a look at current theory and see if something new can be developed. EDIT: Also, take a look at unsolved problems in Mathematics. Many new fields of Mathematics are produced from these. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_mathematics

This is the last post I am making in this thread because it simply is getting no where. Anyways, my last words are I hope there is a proof developed that ends the debate.

I know about Ulam's spiral, and it is not proof of the random distribution, defined as "with no comprehensible sense of a pattern", of prime numbers. Therefore, there is a reason the advisement went unheeded. Merely a constraint. EDIT: Huh, someone down voted me... Interesting.

Why must I repeat myself? Our current state of knowledge has nothing to do with the question at hand, besides whether we will find a proof of the dilemma at hand or not. Unless there is a proof that it is randomly distributed with no ability to produce a formula then the logic here is misleading. This paragraph is a logical fallacy all together. As I have stated before, Mathematics does not give you the ability to state "since this has not been proven, the other conclusion is correct." It is an inconclusive result until proof is presented. Our knowledge of today does not grant the ability to use the informal definition of randomness within mathematics. "Seemingly random" would be a much more accurate description rather than simply "random" until proof is presented. Until then, speculate away. EDIT: One thing I think that should be made clear from here on out is the difference between science and mathematics. In science, it can be declared that current knowledge of reality is what should be accepted. However, in Mathematics what is accepted is what is proven mathematically with 100% certainty. I'm assuming this statement means that certain constraints prohibit some forms of method from being developed.

Just because I haven't shown that the Universe came from nothingness doesn't mean it didn't. Lacking such understanding doesn't make personal suggestion any more correct that lacks proof. If no proof is given then you are spouting nothing other than speculation(there is a section for that). And mathematics doesn't care what mathematicians claim. A mathematician can claim 1+1 = 3 when mathematics itself says otherwise. EDIT: It becomes a useless debate because mathematical proof is the final determination of such conclusions. At this point, the debate would and should remain as 'inconclusive' until otherwise.

Are you saying that it is an axiom? You would have to give a reasonable argument that it should be considered an axiom of Mathematics. So, we are going to give a proof by providing a muse of human thinking about numbers...sounds more like personal incredulity.

Sorry about that, I will focus. But, aren't I right that there is no absolute proof that primes are randomly distributed in the sense that there is no function, yet discovered, that can predict position of primes or produce all of them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number If you think Wikipedia is not a meaningful source, I will get another article. EDIT: I put this in bold for everyone to see, and just to make sure I made it red, italisized, and in 24pt font.

I usually edit to save posts. I don't want to over post and I mostly tell if I did or not. I might forget to sometimes(Acme is angry at me, I can tell. ).

That depends on the definition of random. Seemingly random is different than actually random. And, no it is not meaningless drivel as case in point. And, no I did not repeat the same statement in different ways. It was not redundant for they were similar in subject, but different things were being stated. Thank you for the article. Also, what does the banning of Someguy1 have anything to do with this? I wasn't claiming that the paper did prove anything at all. My rebuttal was merely that not proving one conclusion does not have other to be correct, which is why, again, unsolved problems within mathematics exist.

How is it meaningless drivel? My point was even if one conclusion is not proven, does not make the other automatically correct(unless proven by theorem or where proper deduction is made). This would be a assumption, considered heresy in Mathematics(also please explain your accusations upon such statements when presenting the allegation. It makes for more proper discussion). EDIT: Clarifying this, in this case even if there is no known deterministic function for primes does not mean that one does not exist. There is a reason why unsolved problems within Mathematics exist. Nein, no it is not. It is upon a broader perspective that one conclusion being not proven making the other not automatically correct means that our knowledge of the subject is not complete and more research is needed. EDIT: What you might have meant to say is a conclusion based upon a viable argument.

Just because one conclusion is not proven does not make other correct. Our knowledge is unfinished, of course.

I would think that prime numbers can be seem similarly to the numbers in pi. Even if the decimals in pi are seemingly random, they are the result of a particular function. [math]\pi=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{4(-1)^{n+2}}{2n+1}[/math] I think this type of function can be applied to prime numbers, where recursion is what is needed to find prime numbers. Maybe even [math]2^{2^{2^{...2^{1}}-b}+a}-2^{2^{2^{...2^{1}}-b}+a}...[/math]?(just a guess from the 2^p - 1 formula)

It still isn't working. Can you send a screenshot of it working? At least if it works on your computer then I know it is a problem with my version of Python.

I have been previewing a majority of your topics, and I got to say you aren't making sense. There is no real point of view when analyzing a shape as a whole. What are you asking specifically?

Oh, are we talking about the post I made? Don't be shy, point me out when necessary. I misinterpreted the joke as taking advantage to get a political point across and injecting political agendas. I get offended by this because science and politics, in my opinion, don't mix. I keep them separate and when someone does so I call them out for it.

This would depend on the net force. If the magnetic field's force is less powerful than the already put-in-place gravitational forces, there could be a transfer of energy, but no detectable push/pull by both bodies that could be detected.

That's what I meant. Also, I am currently trying to work that out(need to take the time do work on it).

This discussion already was established long ago in this topic(by billards). As long as there is a mechanism(which there is) that is established by the thread then it is justified to look into its merit. I don't think he is arguing that point. I think he is merely establishing a link between geological activity and climate change. And, of course human activity can have an affect on the environment. Whether its actions are as stated is to be determined by scientific evidence(and doesn't have any relation to the discussion unless referring to higher rates of increased heat on Earth and accounting for such increases in the evidence). I think looking into both would allow a more scientific discussion, if you ask me.

I posted an equation that showed the relationship between the frequency of tectonic activity and the distance between the Earth and Sun(since the distance has not constant throughout the year).