# Difference between revisions of "Talk:1310: Goldbach Conjectures"

(personality testing?) |
TobyBartels (talk | contribs) (On the primality of 1.) |
||

Line 17: | Line 17: | ||

According to the strong twin prime conjecture, all positive numbers greater than one are prime, due to 2 and 3 both being prime and extrapolation on primes from there. Thus, this nearly proves the very strong Goldbach conjecture, excluding one. Should this be noted in the explanation? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.4|108.162.237.4]] 02:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)(Kyt) | According to the strong twin prime conjecture, all positive numbers greater than one are prime, due to 2 and 3 both being prime and extrapolation on primes from there. Thus, this nearly proves the very strong Goldbach conjecture, excluding one. Should this be noted in the explanation? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.4|108.162.237.4]] 02:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)(Kyt) | ||

+ | |||

+ | : I don't know if it's worth complicating things to bring the matter up. It's potentially more complicated than a simple error; in Goldbach's day, people still sometimes thought of 1 as a prime number (which simplifies his conjectures). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 18:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC) | ||

This also reminds me of those psychological tests that ask how you feel about this and that. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.226.228|108.162.226.228]] 15:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC) | This also reminds me of those psychological tests that ask how you feel about this and that. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.226.228|108.162.226.228]] 15:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC) |

## Revision as of 18:00, 1 January 2014

If a bot can create the text I read here, we have made great strides in artificial intelligence. Probably a human editor forgot to change the "incomplete/incorrect" heading. Tenrek (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

- Yes, I'm a bot. 199.27.128.62 21:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought that {{incomplete|Created by a BOT}} means that the template was inserted by a BOT. 173.245.50.84 13:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

- It does mean that. But as others edit the page, they should keep the "incomplete" reason up-to-date. I've changed it to "incomplete|surely not quite complete yet..." ;) Nealmcb (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It all seems to work except that the extremely strong seems to imply the opposite of the extremely weak Djbrasier (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

- I think the mistake is in the implication of the very weak to the extremely weak version. In fact, if there is any connection between those two statements it is an implication that goes the other way round. If the extremely strong version is true, we are not looking at the natural numbers. Thus, "Every number greater than 7 is the sum of two other numbers." does
*not*imply "Numbers just keep going.", at all. (Also this accounts for no numbers at all, so the very weak version would still be correct.) Then there is the case that the extremely strong version is false. An implication from something false to anything is always true. --173.245.53.200 07:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I always find it amusing that people assume that something phrased 'scientifically' is therefore right, whereas something phrased unscientifically (eg religious beliefs taken on faith) are automatically wrong. There seems to be an unexamined assumption that science is some magical dark art for uncovering infallible truths. Of course science is really just a methodological system for testing theories. Whenever I try to explain this concept, I try to come up with a general, untestable (non-scientific) assertion that is nonetheless true, alongside a very specific, repeatedly testable (falsifiable) assertion that is therefore eminently scientific, but which happens to be wrong. (Eg "it sometimes rains on Wednesday" and "it rains at least 100mm every Wednesday in Riyadh"). So for me this comic is a commentary on that principle - that the "strength" of a statement is only really impressive if it has also survived testing. Tarkov (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

- The assumption is not "that science is some magical dark art for uncovering infallible truths" but that science works. Bitches. Also, the example you have given is quite bad considering that your first statement is so vague that it is essentially meaningless and apparently, what you want to say with your second statement is that falsifiable claims are falsifiable, which is pretty trivial. Finally, the statements that are phrased unscientifically are not assumed to be automatically wrong but they are impossible to be proven or disproven and are often worded so vaguely that nobody in the known universe knows just what the hell they are supposed to even mean. They are just empty phrases that carry no information whatsoever. --173.245.53.200 07:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

According to the strong twin prime conjecture, all positive numbers greater than one are prime, due to 2 and 3 both being prime and extrapolation on primes from there. Thus, this nearly proves the very strong Goldbach conjecture, excluding one. Should this be noted in the explanation? 108.162.237.4 02:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)(Kyt)

- I don't know if it's worth complicating things to bring the matter up. It's potentially more complicated than a simple error; in Goldbach's day, people still sometimes thought of 1 as a prime number (which simplifies his conjectures). —TobyBartels (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This also reminds me of those psychological tests that ask how you feel about this and that. 108.162.226.228 15:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)