Thinking Skins Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 This is news that only a mathematician could appreciate. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=first-proof-that-infinite-many-prime-numbers-come-in-pairs It’s a result only a mathematician could love. Researchers hoping to get ‘2’ as the answer for a long-sought proof involving pairs of prime numbers are celebrating the fact that a mathematician has wrestled the value down from infinity to 70 million.“That’s only [a factor of] 35 million away” from the target, quips Dan Goldston, an analytic number theorist at San Jose State University in California who was not involved in the work. “Every step down is a step towards the ultimate answer.” Link for rest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bay Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Yeah, I think so, because I don't know what I just read. I'll stick with history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanboyOf91 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 and the fact that the work seems to use standard mathematical techniques led some to question whether Zhang could really have succeeded where others failed. Probably won't help proving the twin primes conjecture. But a nice result, nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Just a thought, but doesn't this have some importance when it comes to code breaking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 "and the fact that the work seems to use standard mathematical techniques led some to question whether Zhang could really have succeeded where others failed." Probably won't help proving the twin primes conjecture. But a nice result, nonetheless. I'm 80 percent sure that Zhang succeeded. But my other 30 percent has doubts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.