## Submission + - Goldback revisited (arxiv.org) 1

donaggie03 writes:

*"Well, my fellow mathematicians, it's that time again. Agostino Prástaro, from the Univeristy of Rome, claims to have proven Goldbach's Conjecture. The 14 page paper,*

THE GOLDBACH’S CONJECTURE PROVED (link to pdf) is pre-published on Arxiv. Prástaro claims to have proven the conjecture through commutative algebra and algebraic topology:

Abstract. We give a direct proof of the Goldbach’s conjecture in number theory, formulated in the Euler’s form. The proof is also constructive, since it gives a criterion to find two prime numbers 1, such that their sum gives a fixed even number 2. (A prime number is an integer that can be divided only for itself other than for 1. In this paper we consider 1 as a prime num-ber.) The proof is obtained by recasting the problem in the framework of the Commutative Algebra and Algebraic Topology.

So is this a valid proof? Are there any glaring errors or has this conjecture finally been proven?"THE GOLDBACH’S CONJECTURE PROVED (link to pdf) is pre-published on Arxiv. Prástaro claims to have proven the conjecture through commutative algebra and algebraic topology:

Abstract. We give a direct proof of the Goldbach’s conjecture in number theory, formulated in the Euler’s form. The proof is also constructive, since it gives a criterion to find two prime numbers 1, such that their sum gives a fixed even number 2. (A prime number is an integer that can be divided only for itself other than for 1. In this paper we consider 1 as a prime num-ber.) The proof is obtained by recasting the problem in the framework of the Commutative Algebra and Algebraic Topology.

So is this a valid proof? Are there any glaring errors or has this conjecture finally been proven?"

## Glaring Errors? (Score:2)

I don't know that it's a "glaring error", but it's certainly a redefinition of the problem.