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

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

**MathsIsFun****Administrator**- Registered: 2005-01-21
- Posts: 7,559

Hello Oliver!

"The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..." - Leon M. Lederman

Offline

**MathsIsFun****Administrator**- Registered: 2005-01-21
- Posts: 7,559

I am not sure if anyone give this reference to the Millenium Problems: http://www.claymath.org/millennium/

"The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..." - Leon M. Lederman

Offline

**Patrick****Real Member**- Registered: 2006-02-24
- Posts: 1,005

oh yeah ricky, didnt think about that

Support MathsIsFun.com by clicking on the banners.

What music do I listen to? Clicky click

Offline

**krassi_holmz****Real Member**- Registered: 2005-12-02
- Posts: 1,908

Ricky wrote:

1. Prove that if a divides c and b divides c, then ab divides c.

4|16 && 8|16 ,but 32 !| 16.

It's :

(a|c && b|c) =>gcd(a,b)|c.

For seven:

The topic is interesting. I think you're brave for posting it. I was not able to read your first posts, because they are DELETED!!!

You were asking for a statement, which cannot be proved with some set of axioms and which is true.

Here you're wrong. The "validality" of an statement depends on the set of axioms. There don't exist an universally true statemet, which is true for every set of axioms. So, if an statement A is unprovable over a set of axioms {X,Y,...,Z}, we can assume that it's true or it's false. If we assume that it's true, we are getting the new system: {X,Y,...,Z,A}, in which the statement is provable to be true.

But if we assume that A is false, over the set {X,Y,...,Z,!A}, A is provable to be false.

I hope you to understand.

IPBLE: Increasing Performance By Lowering Expectations.

Offline

**krassi_holmz****Real Member**- Registered: 2005-12-02
- Posts: 1,908

And I think Wikipedia is a place where you can understand complicated maths.

If you don't know something (or don't understand it), there a great chance to understand it using Wiki.

Here's a wiki link for the riemann hyp:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis

IPBLE: Increasing Performance By Lowering Expectations.

Offline

**Patrick****Real Member**- Registered: 2006-02-24
- Posts: 1,005

Unless you're from china (not that I am)

Support MathsIsFun.com by clicking on the banners.

What music do I listen to? Clicky click

Offline

**Ricky****Moderator**- Registered: 2005-12-04
- Posts: 3,791

Wikipedia provides great *reference* for information. But it really only makes sense once you understand the topic. Don't get me wrong, it may help. But you are better off looking for a book or site which is meant to teach.

"In the real world, this would be a problem. But in mathematics, we can just define a place where this problem doesn't exist. So we'll go ahead and do that now..."

Offline

**krassi_holmz****Real Member**- Registered: 2005-12-02
- Posts: 1,908

Ricky wrote:

Wikipedia provides great

referencefor information. But it really only makes sense once you understand the topic. Don't get me wrong, it may help. But you are better off looking for a book or site which is meant to teach.

Yes. You're right.

I like wikipedia, because i understand most of what i need.

someone may not.

IPBLE: Increasing Performance By Lowering Expectations.

Offline

**MathsIsFun****Administrator**- Registered: 2005-01-21
- Posts: 7,559

Ricky wrote:

referencefor information. But it really only makes sense once you understand the topic. Don't get me wrong, it may help. But you are better off looking for a book or site which is meant to teach.

I agree - and I think it is a problem for Wikipedia. I have noticed articles that were simple and useful become more and more like something only a researcher would read.

(So "Help Me!" will still be useful!)

"The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..." - Leon M. Lederman

Offline

**Ricky****Moderator**- Registered: 2005-12-04
- Posts: 3,791

But give them time. As soon as they are done making articles such as Fictional Brands in South Park, I'm sure they'll go back to touch up the important ones

"In the real world, this would be a problem. But in mathematics, we can just define a place where this problem doesn't exist. So we'll go ahead and do that now..."

Offline

**MathsIsFun****Administrator**- Registered: 2005-01-21
- Posts: 7,559

Good find, Ricky! My favorite store name from the Simpsons is the "Try-n-Save".

OMG, They have individual pages for Simpson's episode!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marge_Be_Not_Proud

(But we seem to be off the topic of the Riemann hypothesis ...)

Offline

**Ricky****Moderator**- Registered: 2005-12-04
- Posts: 3,791

I'm telling you, they have everything. The best was Steven Colbert. He has a satirical news show on Comedy Central, the Colbert Report (you don't pronounce either 't'). On his show last night, he said in the intro in which he summarizes what will be in the show, "Then I give a report on wikipedia. You can read about it on wikipedia in 10 minutes."

He then went on saying that on wikipedia, you can make things "fact" as long as enough people agree with what you write. So he suggested making it a "fact" that the number of elephants had increased in the pass 6 months. Sure enough, in about 30 seconds (I had my computer handy), the elephants page said ath the top:

THE NUMBER OF ELEPHANTS HAS TRIPLED IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS!

Later (possibly now), the article was tagged:

(Protected Elephant: Colbert)

"In the real world, this would be a problem. But in mathematics, we can just define a place where this problem doesn't exist. So we'll go ahead and do that now..."

Offline

**liu****Member**- Registered: 2013-03-21
- Posts: 1

vixra .org /abs /1301 .0129

goldbach conjecture is false

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 92,878

Hi;

Do you have a counter-example?

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.**

**I agree with you regarding the satisfaction and importance of actually computing some numbers. I can't tell you how often I see time and money wasted because someone didn't bother to run the numbers.**

Offline