Help me explain Goldbach's conjecture. How did Chen calculate 1+2=3?

The upstairs explained the origin of Goldbach's conjecture, and I don't want to repeat it. It depends on the landlord. I'll just talk about Chen Jingrun's proof one. What Chen Jingrun proved was not Goldbach's conjecture.

Chen Jingrun and Shao Pinzong's Goldbach Conjecture, on page 1 18 (Liaoning Education Press), wrote that the result of Chen Jingrun's theorem "1+ 1" generally means that for any even number n, an odd prime number P', p "or p/can always be found.

N=P'+P" (A)

N=P 1+P2*P3 (B)

Of course, it is not excluded that both (a) and (b) are true, such as 62=43+ 19, 62=7+5X 1 1. "

As we all know, Goldbach's conjecture holds for even numbers (a) greater than 4, and for even numbers (b) 10+2.

These are two different propositions. Chen Jingrun confused two unrelated propositions and changed his concept (proposition) when he announced the prize. Chen Jingrun did not prove 1+2, because 1+2 is much more difficult than 1+ 1.

Two. Chen Jingrun used the wrong form of reasoning.

Chen adopts the "positive formula" of compatible substitution reasoning: either A is B or A, so either A or B is combined. This is a wrong form of reasoning, ambiguous, far-fetched, meaningless and uncertain, just like the fortune teller said, "Mrs. Li gave birth, or gave birth to a boy, or gave birth to a girl, or both boys and girls gave birth to multiple births." Anyway, it's right. This judgment is called falsifiability in epistemology, and falsifiability is the boundary between science and pseudoscience. There is only one correct form of consistent substitution reasoning. Negative affirmation: either A is B or A is B, so there are two rules in B. Consistent substitution reasoning: 1, and denying one part of the substitute limb means affirming the other part; 2. Affirm some verbal limbs but don't deny others. It can be seen that the recognition of Chen Jingrun shows that China's mathematical society is chaotic and lacks basic logic training.

Three. Chen Jingrun used many wrong concepts.

Chen used two vague concepts in his thesis, namely "big enough" and "almost prime number". The characteristics of scientific concepts are: accuracy, specificity, stability, systematicness and testability. "Almost prime number" means that the number of pixels is very large. Is it like a child's game? And "big enough" means 10 to the power of 500,000, which is an unverifiable number.

Four. Chen Jingrun's conclusion is not a theorem.

The characteristics of Chen's conclusion are (some, some), that is, some N is (a) and some N is (b), so it can't be regarded as a theorem, because all strict scientific theorems and laws are expressed in the form of full-name (all, everything, all, each) propositions, which state the unchangeable relationship between all elements of a given class and apply to infinite classes. And Chen Jingrun's conclusion is not even a concept.

Five. Chen Jingrun's works seriously violate the cognitive law.

Before finding the general formula of prime numbers, Coriolis conjecture can't be solved, just as turning a circle into a square depends on whether the transcendence of pi is clear or not, and the stipulation of matter determines the stipulation of quantity.

However, Chen Jingrun is still very strong, such as his spirit of exploration. Of course, there were many mathematical geniuses before him. For example, my favorite Gauss studied his writing when he was a child. He is a natural genius. This problem is very difficult, and it is estimated that it will take a long time to find the general formula of prime numbers. Maybe it will be solved soon. Maybe you can handle the questioner. Anything is possible as long as you are willing to work hard. Personally, I think that even if Chen Jingrun doesn't really do it, we should give him great praise and reward.