People who take on big problems

[MathematicalPhysicist]

my question is:
do you have names of people (not crancks, genuine people) who try to solve the big problems of mathematics such as claymath's million dollars problems?
if you do, can you post their names?


btw, i am aware that the serious folks don't speak about their methods until they are sure about them and even then they publish them in monthly issue of some magazine (which isn't free).

 

[matt grime]

What's your motivation for doing this? Most, if not all, researchers are very open and collaborative and their websites will have papers or preprints on them. Perelmen's alleged proof of the Geometrization conjecture is freely available on the net.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

What's your motivation for doing this? Most, if not all, researchers are very open and collaborative and their websites will have papers or preprints on them. Perelmen's alleged proof of the Geometrization conjecture is freely available on the net.

does someone needs motivation to expand his knowledge?

anyway thanks for the name you have i will check it.

edit:
after checking it in google i found that this name is familiar to me, this is the man that the media say has solved poincare conjecture.

 

[matt grime]

No motivation needed, just curious.

But being sent unsolicited manuscripts is an affliction the big boys suffer from that I wouldn't wish to condone by putting their names out there with a large target for the crackpots round here. Seeing as it's all widely known (or at least in the open) anyway I think I'm going too far.

Perelmen is a practical recluse living in the Ukraine. His papers are proving difficult to assess as he uses odd notation and some of his ideas seem dubious (but they'd have to in order to solve a problem like this). Noticably he's not even interested in publishing it, and the million dollars (geometrization implies poincare) doesn't seem to in danger at the moment because of that fact.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

No motivation needed, just curious.

But being sent unsolicited manuscripts is an affliction the big boys suffer from that I wouldn't wish to condone by putting their names out there with a large target for the crackpots round here. Seeing as it's all widely known (or at least in the open) anyway I think I'm going too far.

Perelmen is a practical recluse living in the Ukraine. His papers are proving difficult to assess as he uses odd notation and some of his ideas seem dubious (but they'd have to in order to solve a problem like this). Noticably he's not even interested in publishing it, and the million dollars (geometrization implies poincare) doesn't seem to in danger at the moment because of that fact.

if you want you can pm me their names.
i promise not to send them emails to erratate them

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

here's another question which the study about them is interesting.
a proof to the infinity of coprime numbers, who has published work about this problem?

 

[matt grime]

is coprime what you mean? as every two prime numbers are coprime and there are an infinite number of prime numbers, and this idea is 2000 years old then something must be wrong

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

is coprime what you mean? as every two prime numbers are coprime and there are an infinite number of prime numbers, and this idea is 2000 years old then something must be wrong

coprimes are: primes which are close to each other by 2.
for example: 5 and 7, 11 and 13.
does it go on forever or it has an end to it?

 

[matt grime]

they are called twin primes, coprime has another meaning

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

they are called twin primes, coprime has another meaning

oh, sorry.
anyway do you know any mathematicians who try to work out a proof?

 

[matt grime]

none that don't count as cranks. it isn't really a problem that you work on directly - there is no real direct approach, such is the difficulty of the question. I wouldn't even know where to start to learn about subjects that are of use in approaching the question from the side.

a quick google and sorting out those that are obviously stupid reveals that Conrey (well respected) thinks that some work of Goldston and Yildrim may hold a new technique that may cast *some* light on the issue. If you google for those keywords (twin prime goldston etc) you might find something.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

a quick google and sorting out those that are obviously stupid reveals that Conrey (well respected) thinks that some work of Goldston and Yildrim may hold a new technique that may cast *some* light on the issue. If you google for those keywords (twin prime goldston etc) you might find something.

i searched and found that in their method was found an error.
btw i found goldson is also working on the Riemann Zeta-Function as you said perhaps indirect approach will be profitable (if it worked for wiles maybe it would work for others).