（法国青年数论学家）罗伦特•施得克：蒋（春暄）数论（JNT）（快讯284）

天地生人学术讲座快讯第08-10期（总284期）（共5页）（2008年1月25日）

[载www.tdsrjz.org和www.tdsr.cn]

本期责编：宋正海（中国科学院自然科学史所）

主题：Jiang Number Theory (蒋（春暄）数论)（法国青年数论学家，罗伦特•施得克）

********************************************************************

----------------------------------------------

[陈一文按] 几个月前，一位法国青年数论学家罗伦特•施得克（Laurent Schadeck）见到过国际上某些有关黎曼假设的论文的参考文献中提到蒋春暄《否定黎曼假设》的论文，从而开始寻找中国这位蒋春暄教授。后来，罗伦特•施得克（他还稍微懂一点中文）偶尔在《陈一文顾问网站》中看到我有关蒋春暄的资料与文章，随后通过我与蒋春暄教授建立了联系，对蒋春暄教授更多的文章进行研究。罗伦特•施得克 2008年1 月3日给蒋春暄的邮件，对蒋春暄最新论文《黎曼的论文（1859）是错误的》给予高度评价：-- “祝贺，你的论文非常聪明，在函数方程式、函数定义方面的清晰性方面涵盖了所有以前的论文。”

2008年1 月16日，罗伦特发来了他对蒋春暄教授数论研究成果全面研究后写的论文《Jiang Number Theory (JNT)》[《蒋的数论（JNT）》]。特此以英中文对照方式提供本顾问译出其摘要及部分内容。限于本顾问数学领域专业翻译水平，歉未能提供全部数学内容的中译文。一位与蒋春暄完全不认识的法国青年数论学家对备受争议被中国数学界院士权威讥讽为“垃圾纸”的中国数论学家蒋春暄如此重视、关注与认真研究，不值中国青年一代数学工作者深思吗？中国青年一代数学工作者难道不应当向法国青年数论学家罗伦特•施得克学习，对蒋春暄的数学研究成果先深入调查认真研究，再做出自己独立思考而不是人云亦云的结论？中国并非专攻数学的某些业余研究者，不更应当这样吗？

--------------------------------------

Jiang Number Theory (JNT)

蒋（春暄）数论

Author: Laurent Schadeck

作者：（法国青年数论学家）罗伦特•施得克

→ laurentschadeck@caramail.com

全文网址：→ http://sea3000.net/jiangchunxuan/7.php

Abstract :

摘要

Jiang Chun-Xuan is a Chinese mathematician who claims to have developed new number theoretic tools consisting mostly in the Jiang function where denotes the primorial function to solve fundamental problems in Number Theory such as the Goldbach Conjecture, the Twin Prime Conjecture, the k-tuple Conjecture, et al.

蒋春暄是一位中国数学家，他声称已经开发了新的数学工具，主要包括在蒋函数 中，其中 代表解决数论基础问题的素数函数，例如哥德巴赫猜想（Goldbach Conjecture）、孪生素数猜想（Twin Prime Conjecture）、k-tuple Conjecture（k-生素数猜想）等等。

The fundamental motivation of Jiang to develop a number theory different from the one we are familiar with (we, number theorists) comes from his recent claim (1997) that the Riemann Hypothesis (RH) which lies at the foundations of all prime number theories, is false, that all calculations done to improve it are false, and that the entire speculative theory done through it (see Connes, Bombieri, Zagier et al.) are obviously false.

蒋（春暄）开发与我们熟习的数论（我们，数论家）不同的一种数论的实质性动机，来自他近年（1997）声称黎曼假设（RH）作为所有素数数论的基础（这种认识）是错误的，而且所有欲改进它的计算也多错误，并且从头到尾的整个投机性理论（参看Connes、Bombieri、Zagier等学者的文献）也显然都错误。

Our goal in this paper will be to review Jiang’s achievements from his disproof of RH to his establishment of the new number theory.

本文的目的是审视蒋（春暄）的成就，自他否定黎曼假设开始，到他创立的新数论。

（Note：The Title and Abstract and partial paragraphs is translated by Chen I-wan）

（注：标题、摘要及以下段落由陈一文译成中文）

Further considerations about Jiang’s proof are found in [1], [3], [4].

参考文献[1]、[3]、[4]钟可以看到关于蒋（春暄）的进一步考虑。

In [4] it is above all seen that the French mathematician Antoine Balan [5] found a result about RH that is the exact opposite of those obtained by Jiang. Therefore it seems to us that the falsity of Jiang’s 1997 statement is best showed by showing that Balan is all right. But however Balan is not a number theorist, while Jiang is. Therefore the doubts coming from number theorists have to be assigned with Balan’s work rather than to Jiang’s.

在所有的参考文献中从参考文献[4]中可以看到法国数学家安托内•巴兰（Antoine Balan）的文献[5]中找到了关于黎曼假设（RH）的一个结果，它与蒋（春暄）获得的结果正好相反。由此，对我们看来通过表明巴兰（Balan）完全正确是显示蒋（春暄）1997年声明（译注：否定黎曼假设的声明）虚假的最好方式。

Jiang’s papers have been went worldwide to mathematicians of the stature of Alain Connes, Don Zagier et al. but rather than considering Jiang’s contributions in depth they simply ignored it without reading a number or a letter in Jiang’s calculus.

蒋（春暄）的论文已经在世界范围传播到相当于阿兰•寇纳斯（Alain Connes）、顿•扎格尔（Don Zagier）等人这种水平的数学家们，但他们没有深刻考虑蒋（春暄）的贡献反而简单地忽视它，不愿读蒋（春暄）这种水平学者哪怕一个数字或一封信。

One may also imagine how distasteful it should be to mathematician to show them that the greatest mathematical conjecture ever, that seems provide the number theoretical foundations of mathematics. With the time some ultimate beauty has been assigned with the true of RH. To differ from this point of view, Jiang quoted further Iwaniec :

人们可以想象，向一位数学家出示看来为数学提供数论基础的数学猜想是一件多么令人讨厌的事。经过一段时间，对黎曼假设（RH）的真实性已经赋予了某种最终的美好的东西。与这种观点不同，蒋（春暄）进一步引用了伊万额克（Iwaniec）如下一段话：

“Analytic number theory is fortunate to have one of the most famous unsolved problems, the Riemann hypothesis. Not so fortunately, this puts us in a defensive position, because outsiders who are unfamiliar with the depth of the problem, in their pursuit for the ultimate truth, tend to judge our abilities rather harshly. In concluding this talk I wish to emphasize my advocacy for analytic number theory by saying again that the theory flourishes with or without the Riemann hypothesis. Actually, many brilliant ideas have evolved while one was trying to avoid the Riemann hypothesis, and results were found which cannot be derived from the Riemann hypothesis. So, do not cry, there is healthy life without the Riemann hypothesis. I can imagine a clever person who proves the Riemann hypothesis, only to be disappointed not to find new important applications. Well, an award of one million dollars should dry the tears ; no applications are required.” [6]

“解析数论非常幸运还有一个最为有名的未解决的问题，即黎曼假设。但是，不那么幸运的是，这将我们置于一种防御性的地位，因为对这个问题的深度不那么熟悉的外部的人，在他们追求最终真理的努力中，倾向于较为苛刻地判断我们的能力。在结束这次讲话时，我愿通过再次说明，数论将在无论有还是没有黎曼假设的情况下继续繁荣，来强调我对于解析数论的拥护。事实上，在人们试图回避黎曼假设时，许多有才气的想法获得进展，发现了一些绝对不可能得自黎曼假设的结果。所以，不要哭，没有黎曼假设依然能够有健康的生活。我可以想象一个证明了黎曼假设的聪明的人因为未能发现新的重要应用儿失望。好的，一百万美元的奖赏应当能够清掉眼泪；并不需要应用。”[6]

In order to follow the mainstream prime conception, Jiang argues that:

为了遵循主流素数概念，蒋（春暄）这样争辩：

“The distribution of prime number does not involve Quantum chaos, randomness et al. There is order in the sequence of prime numbers.” [7]

“素数的分布并不涉及量子混乱、随意性等。素数的序列是有规律的。”[7]

This view has been received with enthusiasm by the great philosopher Stein Johansen in [8].

在文献[8]中，伟大的哲学家热情的接受这样的观点。

Moreover Jiang’s works seems to move along with the development of Hadronic Mechanics pioneered by Ruggero Maria Santilli, as seen in [3] and particularly in Isonumber Theory. (If Jiang’s work is right then it is the foundation of Isonumber Theory. In particular Santilli himself claimed in [3] :

此外，从文献[3]来看，蒋（春暄）的工作看来随着R. M. 桑蒂利（Ruggero Maria Santilli）先驱的强子力学的发展而前进。（如果蒋的工作是正确的话，那么它也形成Iso数论的基矗在文献[3]中，桑蒂利自己特别声称这一点。

“I would like to express my utmost appreciation to Professor Chun-Xuan Jiang for having understood the significance of the new iso-, geno-, hyper-numbers and their isoduals I identified for a resolution of the above problems.

“对于蒋春暄教授能够理解作为上述问题我所识别的新的iso-、geno-、hyper-数及其iso孪生数的意义，我愿意表达我的最大感谢。

The significance of the new numbers had escaped other scholars in number theory in the past two decades since their original formulation.

其他数论学者自数论最初形成以来过去二十年期间都忽略了新的数的重大意义。

I would like also to congratulate Professor Jiang for the simply monumental work he has done in this monograph, work that, to my best knowledge, has no prior occurrence in the history of number theory in regard to joint novelty, dimension, diversification, articulation and implications.

我愿对于蒋教授在这部专著中完成的简直不朽的的工作表示祝贺，他的这种工作，据我所知，在数论历史上将新颖、尺度、多样化、清晰度与含意综合在一起方面，以前从来没有出现过。

I have no doubt that Professor Jiangs monograph creates a new era in number theory which encompasses and includes as particular case all preceding work in the field.”

我毫无疑问蒋教授的专著在数论中开辟了一个新时代，它涵盖并特别包括了以前的所有工作。”