1310: Goldbach Conjectures
Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates
 gmalivuk
 GNU Terry Pratchett
 Posts: 26738
 Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
 Location: Here and There
 Contact:
Re: 1310: Goldbach Conjectures
In particular, that one looks like it's a parody of an antievolution "argument" about how no new information or speciation or whatever could happen just from the sum of existing things.
Re: 1310: Goldbach Conjectures
Flumble wrote:garaden wrote:Alice: "Given that you can create any number over 7, they keep going."
I can't read "numbers keep going" in any way other than "there is a successor to every number",
You're doing fine so far.
which means 7 has a successor which is over 7.
Highlighted your error. You're stuck in Euclidean thinking. If the parallel postulate is incorrect and parallel lines meet at 4 and 0, then the successor to 7 is 0.
(Someone else presented a much simpler way of explaining this, earlier, but I like to make my students work. )
"[T]he author has followed the usual practice of contemporary books on graph theory, namely to use words that are similar but not identical to the terms used in other books on graph theory."
 Donald Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol I, 3rd ed.
 Donald Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol I, 3rd ed.
Re: All odd numbers are prime.
cellocgw wrote:somehow I fail to see how including the words "liberal" , "expert" , or "indoctrination" add to this semijoke. Besides which, I rather doubt Einstein would ever have said anything so moronic. Consider, for example, adding NaOH to HCl .
Here.
 jc
 Posts: 352
 Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 5:48 pm UTC
 Location: Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
 Contact:
Re: All odd numbers are prime.
Flumble wrote:jc wrote:There were a lot more, but I've forgotten most of them. I wonder if they're collected somewhere on the Web ...
A quick search shows numerous collections, for example http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Proof_that_all_odd_numbers_are_prime.
Yeah; if you feed google ""all odd numbers are prime" (with the quote), that's the first hit. As someone mentions below, there are only a few there that are really good examples of the joke, mostly because they don't bring in anything at all mathematical. Most of the rest are just silly.
But I did like the rightwing chain letter, and it's a notverymathematical one. And part of the fun of it is that we already have a case of Poe's Law [q.v.] for this joke in this discussion.
I've also seen the proof of the inverse: All prime numbers are odd. This consists of first noting that for all primes > 2, this is trivial, since all the even numbers are a multiple of 2, so those > 2 can't be prime. For 2, we observe that being even, it's an extremely odd prime, which completes the proof. (I actually came up with this one myself, but quickly discovered that there were at least N others who had discovered it before me. I didn't feel bad about this.)
There is, of course, the special case of 1, which generally falls into the "It depends on how you define prime" bucket. But we've had someone here refer to calling 1 a prime as blasphemy. Probably the best answer to this is to observe that mathematicians have historically taken such insults and turned them into technical terms. Thus, when numbers less than zero were introduced, they were denounced as an absurd attempt to count things that don't exist, so they can't exist either. This led to them being called "negative" numbers, a clear admission that, useful as they are, they don't exist. But no numbers have any actual physical existence, so this doesn't much matter. "If you don't like them, don't use them."
Then people demonstrated there were fractional number that weren't the ratio of integers, and those people were denounced as "irrational", so of course that became the name for those numbers. Later, some people started theorizing about numbers whose squares were negative, and this was soundly denounced as talking about something that can't possibly exist. So the response was to call these new numbers "imaginary", as opposed to numbers with nonnegative squares, which were called "real". Again, we have to note that no numbers actually have any physical reality, so these terms are another case of mathematicians adopting insults as their new technical terms.
Maybe someday soon, we'll be able to read esoteric mathematical treatises on the concept of "blasphemous numbers", of which the prime number 1 will be the first member of the set. I wonder what the others will be like? Maybe aleph0.5 will be among them ...
(And this time, I did google "blasphemous number", out of curiosity. None of the hits seem to be at all mathematical. I'm disappointed.
Re: 1310: Goldbach Conjectures
gmalivuk wrote:In particular, that one looks like it's a parody of an antievolution "argument" about how no new information or speciation or whatever could happen just from the sum of existing things.
Aha  looks like I got whooshed by that one
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e33 picas."  keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters"  whatif #146, note 7
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e33 picas."  keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters"  whatif #146, note 7
Re: 1310: Goldbach Conjectures
ManaUser wrote:bondsbw wrote:
 If there are no numbers greater than 7, then every odd ("1", "3", "5", "7") would be prime.
 if every odd number were prime, then every even number n over 2 would be the sum of two primes, namely (n1) and "1".
 If every even number over 2 is the sum of two primes, then every odd number n over 5 is the sum of "3" and any even number (which is already the sum of 2 primes).
 Given all those odds over 5 and evens over 2, you can create any number over 7.
 Given that you can create any number over 7, they keep going.
And yet, if we accept that each step here works, that must also mean "there are no numbers above 7" proves "numbers just keep going", which can't possibly be right.
I forgot to mention that we were suspending transitivity of relations.
Re: 1310: Goldbach Conjectures
As a nonmathematician, when I come across anything mathematical on XKCD, I investigate it on Wikipedia, which is about the full extent of my investigative powers. Sadly, this rarely enlightens me.
I'm wondering about one. Used to be regarded as a prime number, but not any more. Did this make a difference in maths? Were there things that didn't work if one was counted as a prime number?
Edit: Are mathematicians fed up with people asking about one being a prime number?
I'm wondering about one. Used to be regarded as a prime number, but not any more. Did this make a difference in maths? Were there things that didn't work if one was counted as a prime number?
Edit: Are mathematicians fed up with people asking about one being a prime number?
Re: 1310: Goldbach Conjectures
Plutarch wrote:Were there things that didn't work if one was counted as a prime number?
I know that for example prime factorization becomes pretty stupid, because you can now tack on *1 on any factorization, but they are supposed to be unique.
Code: Select all
12 = 3*2*2 = 3*2*2*1 = 3*2*2*1*1 = ...
Re: 1310: Goldbach Conjectures
Yuan wrote:Plutarch wrote:Were there things that didn't work if one was counted as a prime number?
I know that for example prime factorization becomes pretty stupid, because you can now tack on *1 on any factorization, but they are supposed to be unique.Code: Select all
12 = 3*2*2 = 3*2*2*1 = 3*2*2*1*1 = ...
Isn't that a bit like how you can tack ".0" to any integer? Like 5.0?
Re: 1310: Goldbach Conjectures
We are getting too close to the topic not welcomed here.
Re: 1310: Goldbach Conjectures
Kit. wrote:We are getting too close to the topic not welcomed here.
I don't see what this thread has to do with planes on a threadmill =P
Re: 1310: Goldbach Conjectures
xtifr wrote:Flumble wrote:garaden wrote:Alice: "Given that you can create any number over 7, they keep going."
I can't read "numbers keep going" in any way other than "there is a successor to every number",
You're doing fine so far.which means 7 has a successor which is over 7.
Highlighted your error. You're stuck in Euclidean thinking. If the parallel postulate is incorrect and parallel lines meet at 4 and 0, then the successor to 7 is 0.
In my case I'm stuck in thinking that "greater than" and "less than" imply a partial order in which case 0≤7 (obvious because of successorship and transitivity) and 7≤0 (stated) require that 7=0 (and all the other numbers must be equal to eachother).
 Quizatzhaderac
 Posts: 1782
 Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
 Location: Space Florida
Re: 1310: Goldbach Conjectures
The successor function is defined as S(x) = x+1
in mod 8 arithmetic S(7) = 0 and it happens to be that 7 + 1 < 7
For intuition purposes, it helps to remember that definitions are just what we choose, not some platonic truths.
The successor function above defines a successor to have "nextness" but not "greaterness"
Likewise, modular arithmetic has it's own set of definitions, which may or may not be useful. The canonical example of modular arithmetic is hour of the day.
Modular arithmetic is concerned with the question "Is 10 pm plus four hours later or earlier in the day than 10 pm?". You seem to be hung up onbeing later in absolute terms, which is not what modular arithmetic addresses.
in mod 8 arithmetic S(7) = 0 and it happens to be that 7 + 1 < 7
For intuition purposes, it helps to remember that definitions are just what we choose, not some platonic truths.
The successor function above defines a successor to have "nextness" but not "greaterness"
Likewise, modular arithmetic has it's own set of definitions, which may or may not be useful. The canonical example of modular arithmetic is hour of the day.
Modular arithmetic is concerned with the question "Is 10 pm plus four hours later or earlier in the day than 10 pm?". You seem to be hung up onbeing later in absolute terms, which is not what modular arithmetic addresses.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.
Re: 1310: Goldbach Conjectures
Why has nobody yet mentioned the [Expletive Deleted] Weak Goldbach Conjecture: Numbers exist.
Re: 1310: Goldbach Conjectures
Quizatzhaderac wrote:The successor function above defines a successor to have "nextness" but not "greaterness"
I didn't know you could split those properties.
Re: 1310: Goldbach Conjectures
The Russell twin prime conjecture states that the Russell twin prime conjecture is false.
$_[0] wrote:rule 2:
Once a relationship ends, physical access to all relevant machinery is denied.
 gmalivuk
 GNU Terry Pratchett
 Posts: 26738
 Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
 Location: Here and There
 Contact:
Re: 1310: Goldbach Conjectures
Reals and rationals already have greaterness but not nextness.
And even if we interpret "keep going" as there being infinitely many of them, that doesn't require any of that infinitude to be greater than 7. We'd just need to use a different order relationship than the one that is implied by the successor function.
For example:
Put the rationals in [0,1] in a sequence, such as <0, 1, 1/2, 1/3, 2/3, 1/4, 3/4, 1/5, 2/5, 3/5, 4/5, 1/6, 5/6, ...> (increase the denominator by one, list all the fractions with that denominator in order, skipping ones that have already shown up, and repeat).
Adjust this sequence so that the 7th element is 1: <0, 1/2, 1/3, 2/3, 1/4, 3/4, 1/5, 1, ...> or <0, 1/2, 1/3, 2/3, 1/4, 3/4, 1, 1/5, ...> (depending on whether you start with the 0th element or the 1st).
Define a new greaterthan relation on the natural numbers such that m GT n iff r_{m}>r_{n} (with r_{k} being the kth element of our sequence of rationals, and > being the usual order relation on the rationals).
Now we have all the usual natural numbers, but 0 LT 1 GT 2 LT 3 GT 4 LT 5 GT 6 LT 7 GT 8 LT 9 LT 10 and so on, but now all naturals are GT 0 and LT 7, so there are none of them "above" 7.
And even if we interpret "keep going" as there being infinitely many of them, that doesn't require any of that infinitude to be greater than 7. We'd just need to use a different order relationship than the one that is implied by the successor function.
For example:
Put the rationals in [0,1] in a sequence, such as <0, 1, 1/2, 1/3, 2/3, 1/4, 3/4, 1/5, 2/5, 3/5, 4/5, 1/6, 5/6, ...> (increase the denominator by one, list all the fractions with that denominator in order, skipping ones that have already shown up, and repeat).
Adjust this sequence so that the 7th element is 1: <0, 1/2, 1/3, 2/3, 1/4, 3/4, 1/5, 1, ...> or <0, 1/2, 1/3, 2/3, 1/4, 3/4, 1, 1/5, ...> (depending on whether you start with the 0th element or the 1st).
Define a new greaterthan relation on the natural numbers such that m GT n iff r_{m}>r_{n} (with r_{k} being the kth element of our sequence of rationals, and > being the usual order relation on the rationals).
Now we have all the usual natural numbers, but 0 LT 1 GT 2 LT 3 GT 4 LT 5 GT 6 LT 7 GT 8 LT 9 LT 10 and so on, but now all naturals are GT 0 and LT 7, so there are none of them "above" 7.
Re: All odd numbers are prime.
jc wrote:Then people demonstrated there were fractional number that weren't the ratio of integers, and those people were denounced as "irrational", so of course that became the name for those numbers.
Actually, "irrational numbers" are so called because they're not ratios, and noone could stomach calling them "nonratioesque numbers"...
Imaginary numbers really were named derogatively.
Re: 1310: Goldbach Conjectures
I see I'm not the first to mention this, but I noticed two errors.
The big one: the Extremely Weak conjecture is not implied by any of the others (in fact, the opposite is true).
The small one: the Extremely Strong conjecture does not imply the Strong conjecture as written (this could be fixed if Strong says every odd number other than 1).
The big one: the Extremely Weak conjecture is not implied by any of the others (in fact, the opposite is true).
The small one: the Extremely Strong conjecture does not imply the Strong conjecture as written (this could be fixed if Strong says every odd number other than 1).
Re: All odd numbers are prime.
rmsgrey wrote:Actually, "irrational numbers" are so called because they're not ratios, and noone could stomach calling them "nonratioesque numbers"...
Imaginary numbers really were named derogatively.
They still had it easy compared to the stupidasfuck numbers, which were fortunately renamed "quaternions" shortly thereafter.
(I'd mention what they used to call octonions, but I'd get permabanned if I posted it here.)
Re: All odd numbers are prime.
Klear wrote:The name of that student: Albert Einstein.
What's sad is the number of people who actually buy madeup crap like this wholesale.
Thank your deity of choice, or lack thereof, for Snopes. I hope someone has that whole site backed up because we're screwed if it ever goes down.
 Steve the Pocket
 Posts: 704
 Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
 Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!
Re: 1310: Goldbach Conjectures
I was on Snopes recently. Holy gosh do they need to get someone to redesign their site. It looks like something you'd expect to see pushing penisenhancement pills. The fact that they're just about the only reputable site left that still has popup ads (uComics being the only other one I know of) most certainly does not help.
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.
Baige.
Re: 1310: Goldbach Conjectures
ManaUser wrote:And yet, if we accept that each step here works, that must also mean "there are no numbers above 7" proves "numbers just keep going", which can't possibly be right.
They just keep going till 7.
Re: 1310: Goldbach Conjectures
Kit. wrote:ManaUser wrote:And yet, if we accept that each step here works, that must also mean "there are no numbers above 7" proves "numbers just keep going", which can't possibly be right.
They just keep going till 7.
There's a big difference between "They just keep going" and "They just keep going".

 Posts: 1
 Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:18 pm UTC
Re: 1310: Goldbach Conjectures
Hey everyone, I figured this strip would be a good opportunity to have some fun with interactive theorem proving. Unfortunately, the spam filter won't let me post urls, so you'll have to copy/paste this into your address bar yourself.
home.in.tum.de/~brunnerj/goldbach.png
More information on the used software (Isabelle), can be found at isabelle.in.tum.de
You can of course ask me questions, too .
home.in.tum.de/~brunnerj/goldbach.png
More information on the used software (Isabelle), can be found at isabelle.in.tum.de
You can of course ask me questions, too .
Re: 1310: Goldbach Conjectures
Flumble wrote:Quizatzhaderac wrote:The successor function above defines a successor to have "nextness" but not "greaterness"
I didn't know you could split those properties.
Sure you can: consider for example kings, presidents or prime ministers.
shokoshu wrote:Why has nobody yet mentioned the [Expletive Deleted] Weak Goldbach Conjecture: Numbers exist.
That statement may be weaker than the others in a sense, but it is nevertheless highly debatable.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.
Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests