Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Joshua Cranmer, post: 3619258"] So trivial that you messed it up. I checked the math, see: You mean P(x) = 175x^2 - 15x + 14? That's the only way any of your other stuff works (checked via the standard high-school CAS, a TI-89). Where are the counterexamples wrong? You even admitted that your algorithms were, in fact, incorrect, for TSP. I thought I said no more SWJPAM? Besides, if you seriously think that you're the only person whose research has been retracted, you have REALLY missed out on recent scientific advancements. Who? What did they say? This Bruce Eckel: <[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Eckel[/URL]>? If that's not the person than I can hardly say that he's a top mathematician. If he is the same person, then I doubt he's highly qualified to talk on prime counting. Let me guess what they asked you: "Do you have any evidence?". From what I've seen of your work, the answer is, in short, "No." A counterexample is cold, hard proof. You must then show either: 1. The claimed counterexample is invalid. 2. The algorithm works for the claimed counterexample. You have done neither. Ergo, the algorithm is incorrect. First off, we have already established that Google rankings don't matter. Second, I don't see your results in the top 100. Third, the top results give me extant solvers that are good for banal usages. [/QUOTE]