Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ π -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,459

One of the posts in the other forum shows you the formula. He leaves out the reasoning. That is what I am asking your opinion of.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

**Online**

**individ****Member**- Registered: 2014-03-16
- Posts: 131

In Diophantine equations often can write infinitely many formulas describing their solutions. And with an entirely different formula may describe the same solutions. So what's the problem? Do not like it that a lot of decisions?

Using the initial solutions and some geometric formulas Diophantine solutions were obtained. I know a few, but I'm not going to not draw their formulas? I thought that his method in the more general case and got his formula.

*Last edited by individ (2014-04-22 16:32:50)*

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,459

You say that your method gets his formula? How?

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

**Online**

**individ****Member**- Registered: 2014-03-16
- Posts: 131

The method is not published. I can not talk about it.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,459

Hmmm, so you are working for the KGB or the GRU?

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

**Online**

**individ****Member**- Registered: 2014-03-16
- Posts: 131

Everything is much more banal. A lot of effort spent on it, and do not give me the opportunity to even publish an article.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,459

What do you mean by publish? It seems the secrecy is on your side.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

**Online**

**individ****Member**- Registered: 2014-03-16
- Posts: 131

First want to print solution Legendre's equation in a general form, and other systems of equations. All formulas are silent - to show that the equation can be solved in general form. Well, then he is the method of calculation.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,459

How do you know that has not already been done before?

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

**Online**

**individ****Member**- Registered: 2014-03-16
- Posts: 131

These formulas only got me. The fact - as shown, the problem that the Hilbert 10 has a negative solution. That is not on the coefficients of the equation a formula that said that the solution y of the equation is or not. But it turns out that such formulas exist.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,459

Are you aware that Hilbert's 10th problem has been proven by a countryman of your Yuri Matiyasevich to be unsolveable?

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

**Online**

**individ****Member**- Registered: 2014-03-16
- Posts: 131

Yes, I know! So my article and do not print there. They have with me can not argue - no arguments. So I either ignore or erase.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,459

But you still think you have a solution for all of them?

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

**Online**

**individ****Member**- Registered: 2014-03-16
- Posts: 131

All the equations of course can not be solved. But there are groups of equations which are amenable to solutions. You can certainly say that the equation can not be solved and throw this thing. But you can try to figure out what can be solved for them and come up with methods of solution.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,459

Why not publish on the internet?

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

**Online**

**individ****Member**- Registered: 2014-03-16
- Posts: 131

I stir in the forums. In arhiv.org there can not permit necessary.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,459

You could not publish there?

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

**Online**

**individ****Member**- Registered: 2014-03-16
- Posts: 131

I can not. I can not really anywhere.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,459

You needed a sponsor? Or you did not want to?

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

**Online**

**individ****Member**- Registered: 2014-03-16
- Posts: 131

Did not understand what a sponsor? Book to buy?

If you have the opportunity to publish these formulas. I think this is the best that can be done

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,459

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

**Online**

**individ****Member**- Registered: 2014-03-16
- Posts: 131

I know. About what I said, but do not take my stuff there and no one would publish. If you have the opportunity to do.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,459

You would need an endorser, I am not one.

For the time being you will have to use the forums as you said.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

**Online**

**ShivamS****Member**- Registered: 2011-02-07
- Posts: 3,378

ArXiv does have some good papers, but there are papers there that certainly wouldn't make it into refereed journals. One just has to be careful.

Most professionals in this field do look at Arxiv. It is VERY useful in getting the latest information on who's doing what. I look at it every weekday morning -it's the first thing I do. However, I tend to look at my very specific area, and focuses only one groups or people that I'm familiar with. There are just way too many things appearing each day that there's no way I could look at every single paper even in my research area. So I only tend to focus on those work and groups that I'm am familiar with, especially if they're doing something similar.

What this means is that I tend to pay either zero, or very little attention, to unrecognized persons or groups. I just don't use Arxiv to "learn" stuff, but rather to get information on recent progress on the field from the people who I know are working at the forefront of that field. Based on my conversation with others who do use Arxiv, this attitude is very common. We just don't have the time to explore ideas coming from unfamiliar sources.

On the other hand, when I read Nature, Science, PRL, etc... I DO pay attention to every single paper that appears in my subject area, even when it comes from unfamiliar names/groups. The fact that such a paper made it into such peer-reviewed journals means that it has some merit, whether it turns out to be right or wrong later on. So even someone who isn't a big or familiar name in a particular field, if his/her paper made it into such peer-reviewed journals, I would pay as much attention to it as anything another well-known name would publish.

If the original intent of an author is to get name recognition, then he/she will probably be surprised that such work didn't get any attention in such a journal. I would certainly make a good guess that most of who would use such a journal would only pay attention to "brand name" papers, which would have gotten published in a peer-reviewed journal in the first place. So an open journal that is supposed to give publicity to obscure work would not get the publicity it want from the people who are actually working in that field. Whereas an obscure source publishing in peer-reviewed journal would garner more attention.

So I do not necessarily recommend publishing individ's results there.

*Last edited by ShivamS (2014-04-23 01:21:56)*

**Online**

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,459

I do not think they would publish his stuff.

Exposing it on forums can be dangerous because I think it will almost certainly be stolen as soon as someone sees it as worthwhile.

Peer review has its ups and downs. It does add some validity but it also gives a body of guys who are hardly unbiased control over what is to be published. They do not like it then it is dead.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

**Online**