Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #424949 > unrolled thread

AP COLUMN, new mathematics that equals ALGEBRA OF FORM such as 9+6N is all odd composites of 3, beyond 9// AP's superior prime predictor over Ulam's Prime Spiral

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  AP COLUMN, new mathematics that equals ALGEBRA OF FORM such as 9+6N is all odd composites of 3, beyond 9// AP's superior prime predictor over Ulam's Prime Spiral Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 13:21 -0700
    Math has a new refined definition of Prime, far better than Old Math's// why the Riemann Hypothesis is a lie in math comparable to the Humor Lie of Medicine Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 13:58 -0700
      corrected copy Re: Math has a new refined definition of Prime, far better than Old Math's// why the Riemann Hypothesis is a lie in math comparable to the Humor Lie of Medicine Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 14:28 -0700
    Re: AP COLUMN, new mathematics that equals ALGEBRA OF FORM such as 9+6N is all odd composites of 3, beyond 9// AP's superior prime predictor over Ulam's Prime Spiral Earle JOnes <earle.jones@comcast.net> - 2018-10-04 16:03 -0700
      earle jones a worthless insane kook of mathematics, an utter pollution Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 16:38 -0700
        Re: earle jones a worthless insane kook of mathematics, an utter pollution Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> - 2018-10-06 11:32 -0700
        Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 03:14 +0000
      Note to AP: EARle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> - 2018-10-06 21:57 -0700

#424949 — AP COLUMN, new mathematics that equals ALGEBRA OF FORM such as 9+6N is all odd composites of 3, beyond 9// AP's superior prime predictor over Ulam's Prime Spiral

 Someone asked if this is special.

> Is this right triangle special?  If so, why?
> 
> 119, 120, 169


Nothing special at all, in fact, somewhat misleading to novices. 

The pattern that real mathematicians need to focus upon is this

2 x 3 = 6 so there is a B,C of A,B, C where A= 3, 3,4,5 such that 3^2 = 4+5

moving on to next odd number

3 x 5 = 15 so that is the boundary where A,B,C of 5= A and so we have 12,13 for B,C as to 5^2 = 25 = 12+13

Catch the drift of how easy it is to form PPT with UNIT PPT

So the question was, what about 119

We follow the "yellow brick road" above

Take 119 and add 1 which is 120, now divide by 2 which is 60 -- our "frontal Increment"

60 x 119 = 7140 which is our boundary for B,C and thus 119^2 = 14,161 and taking 1/2 of that is 7080.5 and so our B= 7080 while C = 7081

Thus we have the UNIT PPT 119,7080,7081

Now we ask is 119 prime or composite. IN fact we could have asked this question before finding the PPT
the method of AP Columns

119   0
118   1
117   2
116   3 signifies not divisible by 3 since coprime
115   4
114   5
113   6 again, not divisible by 3 since coprime
112   7 now 119 is not prime because 112 is divisible by 7

The AP COLUMN Method is simply a ALGEBRA OF FORM is that of 49 + 7N are all odd numbers beyond 49 which are divisible by 7 and so 112 is just 49 + 7*9 with N=9

The AP COLUMN is just a fancy name for ALGEBRA OF FORM

In fact I can summarize the entire AP COLUMN as the mathematics concept of Algebra of Form

No mystery to why it works for it is the same thing as why 9 + 6N works to eliminate all odd numbers as composite odd for they are factorable by 3, in the sequence 9, 15, 21, 27, 33, 39, 45, etc

The AP pattern of primes involves divulging all Odd Unit PPT, inspection of the odd number and determination of prime or composite.

The PATTERN FORMULA of all primes is 1/2 of (odd number +1) as Frontal Increment to construct the UNIT PPT

In New Math, we worry only about primes up to 1*10^604, because all of mathematics breaksdown beyond this number and is no longer mathematics. For that is the infinity borderline and mathematics is only "probabilistic science", not guaranteed science beyond the border.

Yesterday I asked the question, how good can we engineer a computer to do AP COLUMNS and begin to spit out all the primes from 1*10^604 and below.

New Math definition of Prime Number-- its AP Column is all Coprime, once you delete 0,1.

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH 
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu 


                ::\ ::|:: /:: 
                 ::\::|::/:: 
                     _ _ 
                    (:Y:) 
                     - - 
                 ::/::|::\:: 
                ::/ ::|:: \:: 
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 
            . \ .  . | .   /. 
           . . \. . .|. . /. . 
              ..\....|.../... 
               ::\:::|::/:: 
---------------      ------------- 
--------------- (Y) ------------- 
---------------      -------------- 
               ::/:::|::\:: 
              ../....|...\... 
           . . /. . .|. . \. . 
            . / .  . | .   \ . 

  
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies 

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.      

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe         
Archimedes Plutonium 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#424951 — Math has a new refined definition of Prime, far better than Old Math's// why the Riemann Hypothesis is a lie in math comparable to the Humor Lie of Medicine

On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 3:21:57 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Someone asked if this is special.
> 
> > Is this right triangle special?  If so, why?
> > 
> > 119, 120, 169
> 
> 
> Nothing special at all, in fact, somewhat misleading to novices. 
> 
> The pattern that real mathematicians need to focus upon is this
> 
> 2 x 3 = 6 so there is a B,C of A,B, C where A= 3, 3,4,5 such that 3^2 = 4+5
> 
> moving on to next odd number
> 
> 3 x 5 = 15 so that is the boundary where A,B,C of 5= A and so we have 12,13 for B,C as to 5^2 = 25 = 12+13
> 
> Catch the drift of how easy it is to form PPT with UNIT PPT
> 
> So the question was, what about 119
> 
> We follow the "yellow brick road" above
> 
> Take 119 and add 1 which is 120, now divide by 2 which is 60 -- our "frontal Increment"
> 
> 60 x 119 = 7140 which is our boundary for B,C and thus 119^2 = 14,161 and taking 1/2 of that is 7080.5 and so our B= 7080 while C = 7081
> 
> Thus we have the UNIT PPT 119,7080,7081
> 
> Now we ask is 119 prime or composite. IN fact we could have asked this question before finding the PPT
> the method of AP Columns
> 
> 119   0
> 118   1
> 117   2
> 116   3 signifies not divisible by 3 since coprime
> 115   4
> 114   5
> 113   6 again, not divisible by 3 since coprime
> 112   7 now 119 is not prime because 112 is divisible by 7
> 
> The AP COLUMN Method is simply a ALGEBRA OF FORM is that of 49 + 7N are all odd numbers beyond 49 which are divisible by 7 and so 112 is just 49 + 7*9 with N=9
> 
> The AP COLUMN is just a fancy name for ALGEBRA OF FORM
> 
> In fact I can summarize the entire AP COLUMN as the mathematics concept of Algebra of Form
> 
> No mystery to why it works for it is the same thing as why 9 + 6N works to eliminate all odd numbers as composite odd for they are factorable by 3, in the sequence 9, 15, 21, 27, 33, 39, 45, etc
> 
> The AP pattern of primes involves divulging all Odd Unit PPT, inspection of the odd number and determination of prime or composite.
> 
> The PATTERN FORMULA of all primes is 1/2 of (odd number +1) as Frontal Increment to construct the UNIT PPT
> 
> In New Math, we worry only about primes up to 1*10^604, because all of mathematics breaksdown beyond this number and is no longer mathematics. For that is the infinity borderline and mathematics is only "probabilistic science", not guaranteed science beyond the border.
> 
> Yesterday I asked the question, how good can we engineer a computer to do AP COLUMNS and begin to spit out all the primes from 1*10^604 and below.
> 
> New Math definition of Prime Number-- its AP Column is all Coprime, once you delete 0,1.
> 

Now, there maybe some huge huge huge surprises as to comparing Old Math's definition of Prime with comparing New Math's definition of prime. What I mean is, when we did the AP Column of 21

21   0
20  1
19  2
18  3
17  4
16  5
15  6
14  7
13  8
12  9
11  10

Notice we get two classes of NON-COPRIME, we get the class of outright full division such as 18/3 and 14/7

And then we get a different class of NON-COPRIME that of 15/6 is reducable to 5/2 and 12/9 is reducable in lowest terms to 4/3

So that the definition of PRIME in Old Math was a utterly crude crude crude concept that needed vast sharpening up, it was a "dull instrument" one can say.

The New Math definition of Prime takes into consideration of not only outright full division, but of a nuanced prime, a finessed prime in that of reduction to lowest terms involved in the concept of prime.

So, let that be a New Era Math conjecture-- can you have Primes that exist only with "not coprime with only reduction to lowest terms and without a outright full division available. I do not know, perhaps one of the primes between 3 and 1009 is a prime that has no outright division of its AP Column.

And all of this relates to what is in the math news today-- Atiyah with his fake Riemann Hypothesis proof. Fake, fake, fake math just like Wiles with his FLT, and Hales with his Kepler Packing and Appel & Haken with their fake 4 Color Mapping. But there is one big difference, RH is totally false, total piece of worthless math junk. With FLT, and 4 Color Mapping those are true statements but only fake proofs offered by Wiles and Appel & Haken. In the case of Kepler Packing the statement itself needs repair and hence never was a proof available for the statement is missing conditions near the infinity borderline where a different style of packing can inrease the density, and that one form of packing is insufficient-- just like our suitcases, where at the end we rearrange our pattern of packing to squeeze in an additional item.

But RH is far worse than even Kepler Packing for KP is about a form of packing that is a majority form, then at the end we shift style of packing to increase the density-- the reason KP was never proven for it is a variable packing-- not just one solitary uniform packing-- for it needs to consider the infinity borderlines to be a true proof.

As for RH-- well, it is totally false, there is no saving of RH at all. It is a total piece of mired falsehood of mathematics. It is one lie after another lie after another lie in mathematics. RH has no consideration of what Infinity means. RH is built from polluted numbers of Reals, Complex when those are trash, and the true numbers of mathematics are Grid Numbers. No Complex numbers exist. No irrational numbers exist. No transcendental numbers exist. All generations of Fake Science build up a monster fakery, just as in Ancient times the liaring of Medicine as some silly black bile, yellow bile, phlegm,and blood that nonsense built up one lie to cover the next lie and the next lie to the hideous point where you have doctors with leeches draining the blood of victims, not patients. The Riemann Hypothesis in mathematics is the modern day LIE of mathematics that was the Humor theory of Medicine.

Every science, math included builds up a Lie to such a massive proportion-- Humor in Medicine, the Epicycles of Ptolemy in Astronomy and the Riemann Hypothesis in mathematics. 

Every science builds up a lie to such a massive proportion, that it becomes so ridiculous and to see grown men-- grown mathematicians with their "microgram brain of logic" worship such lies as to think they have proven the lie. (deluded kook crackpots seeking fame--and too stupid to ever realize it was-- just a lie)

1Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH 
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu 


                ::\ ::|:: /:: 
                 ::\::|::/:: 
                     _ _ 
                    (:Y:) 
                     - - 
                 ::/::|::\:: 
                ::/ ::|:: \:: 
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 
            . \ .  . | .   /. 
           . . \. . .|. . /. . 
              ..\....|.../... 
               ::\:::|::/:: 
---------------      ------------- 
--------------- (Y) ------------- 
---------------      -------------- 
               ::/:::|::\:: 
              ../....|...\... 
           . . /. . .|. . \. . 
            . / .  . | .   \ . 

  
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies 

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.      

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe         
1Archimedes Plutonium 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424958 — corrected copy Re: Math has a new refined definition of Prime, far better than Old Math's// why the Riemann Hypothesis is a lie in math comparable to the Humor Lie of Medicine

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:58:34 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Math has a new refined definition of Prime, far better than Old
 Math's// why the Riemann Hypothesis is a lie in math comparable to the Humor
 Lie of Medicine
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 20:58:34 +0000

Math has a new refined definition of Prime, far better than Old Math's// why the Riemann Hypothesis is a lie in math comparable to the Humor Lie of Medicine

- show quoted text -
Now, there maybe some huge huge huge surprises as to comparing Old Math's definition of Prime with comparing New Math's definition of prime. What I mean is, when we did the AP Column of 21 

21   0 
20  1 
19  2 
18  3 
17  4 
16  5 
15  6 
14  7 
13  8 
12  9 
11  10 

Notice we get two classes of NON-COPRIME, we get the class of outright full division such as 18/3 and 14/7 

And then we get a different class of NON-COPRIME that of 15/6 is reducable to 5/2 and 12/9 is reducable in lowest terms to 4/3 

So that the definition of PRIME in Old Math was a utterly crude crude crude concept that needed vast sharpening up, it was a "dull instrument" one can say. 

The New Math definition of Prime takes into consideration of not only outright full division, but of a nuanced prime, a finessed prime in that of reduction to lowest terms involved in the concept of prime. 

So, let that be a New Era Math conjecture-- can you have Primes that exist only with "not coprime with only reduction to lowest terms and without a outright full division available". I do not know, perhaps one of the odd composites between 3 and 1009 is a composite that has no outright division of its AP Column. 

And all of this relates to what is in the math news today-- Atiyah with his fake Riemann Hypothesis proof. Fake, fake, fake math just like Wiles with his fake FLT, and Hales with his fake Kepler Packing and Appel & Haken with their fake 4 Color Mapping. But there is one big difference, RH is totally false, total piece of worthless math junk. With FLT, and 4 Color Mapping those are true statements but only fake proofs offered by Wiles and Appel & Haken. In the case of Kepler Packing the statement itself needs huge major repairs and hence never was a proof available for the statement is missing conditions near the infinity borderline where a different style of packing can increase the density, and that one form of packing is insufficient-- just like our suitcases, where at the end we rearrange our pattern of packing to squeeze in an additional item. 

But RH is far worse than even Kepler Packing for KP is about a form of packing that is a majority form, then at the end we shift style of packing to increase the density-- the reason KP was never proven for it is a variable packing-- not just one solitary uniform packing-- for it needs to consider the infinity borderlines to be a true proof of mathematics. 

As for RH-- well, it is totally false, there is no saving of RH at all. It is a total piece of mired falsehood of mathematics. It is one lie after another lie after another lie in mathematics. RH has no consideration of what Infinity means with infinity borderlines to consider. RH is built from polluted numbers of Reals, Complex even the garbage of negative numbers, when those are trash, and the true numbers of mathematics are Grid Numbers. No Complex numbers exist. No irrational numbers exist. No transcendental numbers exist. No negative numbers exist. RH is math's monster fakery-- Fake Science Supreme Mountain of fakery build up over decades, just as in Ancient times the liaring of Medicine as some silly black bile, yellow bile, phlegm,and blood that nonsense built up one lie to cover the next lie and the next lie to the hideous point where you have doctors with leeches draining the blood of victims, not patients. The Riemann Hypothesis in mathematics is the modern day LIE of mathematics that was the Humor theory of Medicine. Yes, when we look at Wiles, at Hales, at Appel & Haken at Atiyah, we are looking at some doctor in white clothes ready to administer leeches to cure some poor math graduate student of any common sense math he/she may have had, and is now been leeched of that last remnant of mathematical intelligence.

Every science, math included builds up a Lie to such a massive proportion-- Humor in Medicine, the Epicycles of Ptolemy in Astronomy, the phlogiston of physics and the Big Bang and Black Holes of physics, and the Riemann Hypothesis in mathematics. 

Every science builds up a lie to such a massive proportion, that it becomes so ridiculous and to see grown men-- grown mathematicians with their "microgram brain of logic" worship such lies as to think they have proven the lie. (Deluded kook crackpots seeking fame--and too stupid to ever realize it was-- just a lie, just a lie, just a lie all along.) 

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424964

On 2018-10-04 20:21:48 +0000, Archimedes Plutonium said:

>  Someone asked if this is special.
> 
>> Is this right triangle special?  If so, why?
>> 
>> 119, 120, 169
> 
> 
> Nothing special at all, in fact, somewhat misleading to novices.

[...]

*
Archie:

The triangle 119, 120, 169 is, in fact, VERY special.

You missed seeing its special nature.

Since 169 is a perfect square (13^2), we can write:

119^2 + 120^2 = 13^4

This is the only such triangle in existence of the form:

	a, a+1, b^2 where a and b are integers.

earle
*

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424965 — earle jones a worthless insane kook of mathematics, an utter pollution

On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 6:03:32 PM UTC-5, Earle JOnes wrote:
> On 2018-10-04 20:21:48 +0000, Archimedes Plutonium said:
> 
> >  Someone asked if this is special.
> > 
> >> Is this right triangle special?  If so, why?
> >> 
> >> 119, 120, 169
> > 
> > 
> > Nothing special at all, in fact, somewhat misleading to novices.
> 
> [...]
> 
> *
> Archie:
> 
> The triangle 119, 120, 169 is, in fact, VERY special.
> 
> You missed seeing its special nature.
> 
> Since 169 is a perfect square (13^2), we can write:
> 
> 119^2 + 120^2 = 13^4
> 
> This is the only such triangle in existence of the form:
> 
> 	a, a+1, b^2 where a and b are integers.
> 
> earle
> *

You missed the point-- you have a worthless kook mind in mathematics, which is not as problematic as that you are a arrogant worthless tramp in math-- a kook mind that lashes onto insignificant localized kook things that sticks out in your kook mind, and then you magnify that kook idea out of proportion.

the specialness of 8 by Royal Kook Earle

7,8,9

8 is the only number bounded by a prime 7 where 8 is 2^3 and bounded by 3^2 of 9

kooklet Earle burbles-- no other number is like that in math

So, worthless, mindless idiot earle (probably baez in another of his scores of fake name disguises) kook of math. Only an insane kook of math sees something as significant to his insane mind in science and thinks it means something. That is part of the definition of kook of science-- makes the insignificant pollute math.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425085 — Re: earle jones a worthless insane kook of mathematics, an utter pollution

On 2018-10-04 23:38:48 +0000, Archimedes Plutonium said:

> On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 6:03:32 PM UTC-5, Earle JOnes wrote:
>> On 2018-10-04 20:21:48 +0000, Archimedes Plutonium said:
>> 
>>> Someone asked if this is special.
>>> 
>>>> Is this right triangle special?  If so, why?
>>>> 
>>>> 119, 120, 169
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Nothing special at all, in fact, somewhat misleading to novices.
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> *
>> Archie:
>> 
>> The triangle 119, 120, 169 is, in fact, VERY special.
>> 
>> You missed seeing its special nature.
>> 
>> Since 169 is a perfect square (13^2), we can write:
>> 
>> 119^2 + 120^2 = 13^4
>> 
>> This is the only such triangle in existence of the form:
>> 
>> 	a, a+1, b^2 where a and b are integers.
>> 
>> earle
>> *
> 
> You missed the point-- you have a worthless kook mind in mathematics, 
> which is not as problematic as that you are a arrogant worthless tramp 
> in math-- a kook mind that lashes onto insignificant localized kook 
> things that sticks out in your kook mind, and then you magnify that 
> kook idea out of proportion.
> 
> the specialness of 8 by Royal Kook Earle
> 
> 7,8,9
> 
> 8 is the only number bounded by a prime 7 where 8 is 2^3 and bounded by 
> 3^2 of 9
> 
> kooklet Earle burbles-- no other number is like that in math
> 
> So, worthless, mindless idiot earle (probably baez in another of his 
> scores of fake name disguises) kook of math. Only an insane kook of 
> math sees something as significant to his insane mind in science and 
> thinks it means something. That is part of the definition of kook of 
> science-- makes the insignificant pollute math.
> 
> AP

*
AP:

From the "kook of math":

What do you think of the number 239?

Is it an interesting number?

earle (kook of math)
*

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425102 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:

>You missed the point-- you have a worthless kook mind in mathematics, 
>which is not as problematic as that you are a arrogant worthless tramp in 
>math-- a kook mind that lashes onto insignificant localized kook things 
>that sticks out in your kook mind, and then you magnify that kook idea 
>out of proportion.

You are talking about yourself again, Archie?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425107 — Note to AP:

*
Note to Archie:

AP:

Some time ago, I asked you to consider the number 239.  Is this number 
interesting to you?

I could write this as 119 + 120, which are the two legs of the right 
triangle, 119, 120, 169.

This is a right triangle, which you said was not very interesting.

Actually, it is the ONLY right triangle where the two legs differ by 
one and the hypotenuse is a perfect square.  In other words 119^2 + 
120^2 = 169^2 = 13^4

Can you find another similar case?

By the way, 239 / 169 is a VERY good approximation to sqrt(2) for 
fairly obvious reasons.

Cheers!

earle
*
PS:  Why do you call those of us who disagree with you "Racist"?

Race has nothing to do with it.

ej
*

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web