Unity+

He is saying that he doesn't see, and I don't either, how generating numbers from multiplication of primes shows that there are infinite twin primes.

I am trying to be as nice as I can to you. You are pulling my strings here. We might as well not have this topic open.

I don't think any of the "theories" that this topic has presented have been productive. Please, we are trying to help you learn. If you refuse, then we might as well not have this topic. If we are going to have Relative follow the rules of Speculation we should do it as well.

No, it just wastes time if the objective is to dedicate to science. It shouldn't require CGI to demonstrate concepts like these. In fact, most of what we want is the mathematics of it all.

I think he is referring to the idea of having two boxes and, in relativity, there would be no way to experiment in Einstein's "box"(I think it was actually an elevator) to determine the difference between the forces of gravity and the box moving at a speed that would imitate the same gravitational force.

Of course it hasn't been solved yet, but it would be significant to consider other properties of Hailstone sequences after it has been solved(or the properties brought in this post will be solved with the solution to the problem). Before introducing these problems, here are things to be defined: A Collatz number is defined by a number in a Hailstone sequence that is represented by [math]c_{x}=6x-2[/math] where x is the index of the number. This is a result of [math]c_{x}=3(2x-1)+1[/math]. A Hailstone sequence is a sequence of numbers resulting from the Collatz conjecture rules. A Hailstone exception is a number that does not follow the pattern of a Collatz number appearing every other step. For example, {3, 10, 5, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1} does follow this pattern until 4(where 4 is a hailstone exception). There is no formula to define Hailstone exception(as of yet that I have developed) because they seem to appear at random points in a Hailstone sequence. However, there might be one I have not seen. There are two types of Hailstone Exceptions(HE). One is the type where it is defined by being [math]c_{x}=2^{n}(n_{o})[/math], where [math]n_{o}[/math] is an odd number. The other is represented by [math]c_{x}=2^{n}(c_{x})[/math]. EDIT: The formula(I think) of a hailstone exception would be [math]3(4x - 3)+1[/math], or [math]12x - 8[/math]. However, this does not predict if it is one of the two Hailstone exceptions. Here is an example that contains a few hailstone exceptions(this example contains only Collatz numbers): {27 82 [124] 94 142 214 322 [484] [364] 274 [412] 310 466 [700] 526 790 1186 1780 (1336) 334 502 754 1132 850 1276 958 1438 2158 3238 4858 7288 1822 2734 4102 6154 9232 4616 1154 1732 1300 976 [244] 184 46 70 106 160 [40] 10 (16) [4]} Here are the issues that might be addressed after the conjecture is solved(unless it is solved within its solution). For a [math]c_{x}=2^{n}(c_{x})[/math] hailstone exception, what is the largest value of n(that will appear in a hailstone sequence)? For a [math]c_{x}=2^{n}(n_{o})[/math] hailstone exception, what is the largest value of n(that will appear in a hailstone sequence)? For a hailstone exception, what is the farthest distance between hailstone exceptions? What is the formula to represent a hailstone exception? Is there any? These are just a few things that might be addressed. I find them important from what I have studied within the Collatz conjecture. EDIT2: Just for efficiency, here is the equation for the 2^{x} numbers that are Collatz numbers: [math]c_{s}=6(\sum_{n=1}^{s}\left [ 2^{(2n-1)} \right ]+1)-2=6\sum_{n=1}^{s}\left [ 2^{(2n-1)} \right ]+4[/math]

I consider fools to be similar to trolls, and treat the solution the same; don't feed them. All they want is attention and if you argue with them they are fed more and more. Therefore, the solution is to simply ignore them.

The only reason why I would think this is if our government was running the space program.

To be honest, I don't know why this thread is still in the Mathematics section. It should be moved to speculation. EDIT: And if not that, it should be deleted.

I don't know if you have before, but can you point out the supposed flaws in statistics? I think statistics provides a great and accurate way to predict with probabilities of events. If you learn about bell curves, error bounds, and confidence levels you will be thankful for statistics because it allows one to say "Because nature is so unpredictable with its values, let us provide a range in which the value can lie in so we can classify it as X instead of Y" Without statistics, we would be dealing with uncertainties. In my book, that statement is an enemy to mathematics. You MUST always provide evidence if you claim something to be true. You cannot simply say 0 = 1 and not present any proof. Statistics accounts for economy because it accounts for uncertainties(or at least most). In bell-curve analysis, there is a huge ability to classify data in probabilities using the 65%, 95%, and 99,7% rule. That may be because a majority of statistics contains axioms rather than theorems because of the nature of probability and statistics. You do realize in mathematics that axioms do not have proofs because they are simply seen as being correct without proof. Technically, it is the best method and proven throughout history. One important use of statistics is for particle physics. At CERN, when looking for particles, they look for ranges rather for precise values because of course the values they get will not fit the particle exactly. Therefore, they must set a range in order to determine of the test is successful or not.

Sorry for the misinterpretation. I am merely focusing on the equation, though. I am sub scripting the function because I am showing that it is different than the zeta function. I am only focusing on one particular solution out of all of the solutions.

I even think we found found undeniable proof of the current model of the Big Bang(using patterns found in gravitational waves detected). Am I correct on this? What do you mean by this? Are you saying the mathematics behind the idea of the current Big Bang Theory is flawed? I don't think it was panic. I don't agree with ACG52's use of words when stating that a speculative idea is flawed, but I think what we are getting at is your speculation doesn't have any predictions that could be made more efficiently than our current model of the Big Bang. FRIENDLY NOTE: ACG52 takes science very seriously and when someone challenges a scientific theory that has so much evidence to back it up he takes the irrationality of denial ism as an insult(this isn't an insult towards you AC ). I take mathematics very seriously and when someone states something that is highly irrational, such as "1 does not equal .9 repeating", even when proven beyond a doubt, I tend to go towards AC's line of criticism.

Then why are you in this thread? Then can't we simply ignore them? EDIT: I think the problem is we aren't applying "evolution" to posting in the forum. If a thread in Speculation is bad then let it die. Other threads that are better will get more posts and last longer. And if someone tries to keep a bad thread alive then it gets put in the trash.

Then why do you even visit the topics in this section? I think it is a waste of posts if you are going to simply diminish other people. I know he doesn't make sense, but then I don't post in threads that don't make sense unless I see potential, even if it is a potential of .000000000000000000000...1. "Science isn't about determining who is right or wrong. It is learning from one's mistakes and making discoveries from such mistakes"(can't remember the exact quote, but it gets to the point).

No, mathematics is needed in order to provide a way to predict from the idea. Simply providing an idea is not sufficient.

It isn't just the core that pulls back the ball to the ground.

Gravity doesn't repel. Yes, the Sun's gravity pulls objects toward it. The reason why gravity allows orbits is because of the idea of an object being pulled in by a larger object, causing falling to become a orbit effect(correct me if I am wrong). Imagine a bullet being shot at Earth in such a position that the gravity causes the bullet to orbit around the planet or object of orbit.

All mass around the Earth's core is attracted to the core, opposites attract, equal repels. What are you trying to accomplish forcing this faulty speculative idea upon me? Yes, the mass on Earth is attracted towards the Earth. However, this does not mean that gravity from the Sun only affects the core of the Earth.

Gravity doesn't talk... No, all the mass on Earth is affected by gravity. EDIT: All mass is affected by gravity.

The equations are not equal(though I am working to see if they are in a certain way), however they have properties that are very similar. This is what I am getting at. EDIT: I forgot to add the subscript i. [math]\zeta (x)_{i}=\left ( x-1 \right )^{s}+x^{s}[/math] I knew that, but thought it could slide.

The roots are not supposed to be real. What I am pointing out is how the complex roots have 1/2 as the real part of the complex root. The prime-test equation I am referring to is (x-1)^p - (x^p - 1). I fixed the equation so s must be even and bigger than 1. [math]\zeta (x)=\left ( x-1 \right )^{s}+x^{s}[/math]

Thanks to iNow, I was able to make this finding(unless this was already found before I found it). I was meaning to post this sometime or other, but now I have the time to do so. When I saw the equation for the prime test, I decided to mess with it. When I took it's derivative, I found that the equation, when solving for x when y = 0, would come up with complex numbers, where the real part is 1/2. I modified the equation(only the exponents) so it would fit the characteristics of the Riemann Zeta function(though an unorthodox method, I thought it would be important). [math]\zeta (x)=(x-1)^{s}-x^{s}[/math] Where s = p+1 and s must be an even number. Now, in the paper iNow provided there didn't seem to be a reference to the relationship presented here. I think it would be interesting to investigate this because of the similarities. One thing to point out is whenever s is odd, x equals 1/2, not 1/2 +/- ti, where t is a real number. I feel that this is not a coincidence and has relevance to the Riemann Hypothesis. EDIT: Forgot to link the paper http://www.cse.iitk.ac.in/users/manindra/algebra/primality_v6.pdf EDIT2: I just found something new after making this topic. I will post it soon. EDIT3: Other properties I have found are: The amount of solutions, if s is even, that will exist is equal to p-1. The product of all roots will be 1/s. The sum of all roots will equal to p/2.