Re: Prime numbers, my find, and discovery

James Harris wrote:

> Gauss wondered what the discrete count of prime numbers could have to
> do with continuous functions like x/ln x, and while mathematicians
> made progress in finding relations that gave limits, like Chebyshev's
> use of the zeta function discovered by Euler, they never found a
> reason why.
>
> I may have found that reason.

What is it? You keep talking as if you are about to present it, but never
do.

> As I've found a partial difference equation, it leads to a partial
> differential equation.  That partial differential equation may answer
> many questions.

What "partial differential equation"? You have never posted it. You claim
it may provide answers to many questions, but neither post it nor the
answers. It's one thing to claim magnificent properties for a specific
result, but how can you claim them for an undetermined result?

Either post this so-called "partial differential equation" and show the
connection with prime counting. Your failure to do so will be taken as
conclusive proof that you CANNOT DO SO.

[snip tiresome, paranoid, rambling, repetitive, unsupported diatribe
against academia]

> dS(x,y) = [p(x/y, y-1) - p(y-1, sqrt(y-1))][ p(y, sqrt(y)) - p(y-1,
> sqrt(y-1))],
>
> S(x,1) = 0, p(x, y) = floor(x) - S(x, y) - 1,
>
> and S(x,y) is the sum of dS from dS(x,2) to dS(x,y).
>
> And p(x,sqrt(x)) is the count of prime numbers up to and including x.
>
> That's pure knowledge.  Information discovered by me, and hey, it
> wasn't like it just jumped in my lap you know.  There's a value to
> cheering on discovery, and not attacking it.

OK. 2 + 3 = 5. I demand that you cheer this discovery unless, of course,
you are a hypocrite.

> The value is hope for the future.  Hope that there may be answers out
> there from unlikely sources.  Hope that every person can be valuable.

The obvious purpose of your posts is to demand that *your* work be
considered valuable.

> Maybe mathematicians want a reality that has them ordained as the only
> route for new mathematical knowledge.  Possibly they wish control over
> the creative process, and total dominion over mathematical discovery.
>
> But hey, they're only human.

Wacky, isn't it? But hey, it's only basic math. Yup, yup, yup!

--
There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable --
and the obvious.
--
Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.
--
http://www.crbond.com