Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

EPILOGUE

*
It is time to finish my thinking on Mathematics , where many
things of which were preoccuping me almost all the last half of my
life .
It is time to say farewell to my mathematical thought , to my
sedulous and passionate years wallowed in Math .
In my hands now there is my Posthumous works consisted of four
own researchs on the four ancient unsolved problems , which are :

1 . An elementary proof of the Fermats last theorem ,


written in English , where my idea consists in leading this theorem
into a simple and beautiful exercise solved in Number theory , that
says there is no any triplet of successive natural numbers x , y and z
satisfying the Fermats equation : xn + yn = zn when n N and
n > 2 . Then after establishing the affirmation of this exercise as the
necessary and sufficient condition of the Fermats conjecture , its
proof is completed .
However , unfortunately , none of the submitted offices , inclusive of
Institute of French and Journal of Number theory , had recognized it ,
even had read it !

2 . An elementary proof of the infinity of the twin-primes


( p, p+2) and the neighbouring pairs of twin-primes ( p , p + 2 ;
p + 6 , p + 8 ) , written in French , where my idea is to change the
Eratosthenes sieve into two new sieves by varying its structural scale
and then , to use the Legendres density limit of the primes . Thereby
I get two new sieves , from which , the first one is used to sift the
twin-primes , and the second - the pairs of neighbouring twin-primes .
But regrettably , it had been refused even to examine only by one
referees remark , that says :
the author suggests he can prove the well-known and very
important twin-prime problems and related problems in a very
elementary way . Many outstanding people have tried in vain to
prove this . However I express serious doubt the author achieved this
I am sorry to suppose that this referee read some lines of the
summary only . For my part , I just want to cry What superficial
remark I was having ! How irresponsible refusal that it is !

3 . Essay on an elementary proof of the Goldbachs conjecture


written in French , where my idea is to vary once again the
Eratosthenes sieve into a third one for sifting the Goldbachs pairs of
primes . With this new proposed sieve , I can prove the Goldbach
conjecture 2n = pi + pj for every natural number n by two
ways , one by induction and one by a heuristic manner . Furthermore

1
two consequences of this conjecture , considered as its corollaries had
been proved , where the first is the Bertrands conjecture enunciated
in 1840 proved by Tchebyshev in 1850 ; and the second is the
infinity of the Goldbachs twin- primes pairs and the Goldbachs
neighbouring twin- primes pairs .
As a consequence of the refusal of my second work , this third
work had not been submitted nowhere .

4 . Non-existence of any k-perfect odd numbers , written in


English , which consists in the following four subworks :
1 ) Towards reaching a portrait of an odd perfect number ,
written in English , where I proposed two ways to approach this
problem , in which the first is posed in the set of unit fractions or
Epyptian fractions , and the second posed in geometry . Both the
approachs give me five affirmations considered as five lemmas . Then
I showed my hopelessness at the existence of any diperfect odd
numbers .
2 ) Continuation 1 of Towards reaching a portrait of , in
English , which expanded the subwork 1 ) just above , by a
geometrical approach especially . This subwork gives me eleven
lemmas again .
3 ) Non-existence of any k- perfect odd numbers , in
English , where in spite of the defeat of this affirmation , such as it
was explained in my self criticism , I deeply believe in the
effectiveness of the approach to the set of unit fractions in the
unsolved problem of the k perfect odd numbers .
4 ) Where there is smoke , there is smoke - a self
criticism to my fourth work . In this subwork , after disclosing
some counter-examples of the two theorems of the subwork 3 ) above
and obtaining five lemmas again , I knew clear that I had lost my
bet , as it were .
Consequently, I recognized that the most reasonable for my age is
to finish my mathematical thinking now . This is a right , but
unhappily , no easy decision , really .

*
In a gloomy day as today , opening and looking through al pages
by turns , again and again , I deeply feel both joyful and sorrowful
at the same time .
Sometimes I asked myself and hesistated about my character : Is it
really overhurry and oversubjective ? Is it really undercareful and
underobjective ? And then , a final answer is clear : It is just my
character undoubtedly .

2
Furthermore , there is also my 81 years of age , too old for
anybody to discover something beautiful , in particular , to get a
mathematical achievement of some account .
I saw clear an unreasonable arrangement in time of my creative
works : In late half my life , that was also too old , these four works
were just being done . If it is so then Who arranged ? Me , Myself
or Somebody unknown ? Me , Myself Ontological or my Destiny ??
At any rate , the Greek first philosopher Heraclitus ( -544~ -484 ) -
father of Dialectics , author of the word No one can wash two
times in a river - gave us one unrefutable definition of the Destiny :
Ones Character - Ones Destiny

*
I want to offer this Posthumous Works to my readers ,
professional and unprofessional , who esteem Mathematics as a
sacred favour and duty in the hope of using its complete results and
improving its incomplete ones .
Let me express my deep gratefulness to all them .

* * *
Hanoi , April 30 , 2016
N. V. TU-YEN

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen