◇◇新语丝(www.xys.org)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇

　　从一段证明中看为什么没有数学家来反对蒋春暄的发现

　　流星剑

　　首先声明，本人并不是学习数学的，对数学的知识仅仅停留在中学的水平。
然而我确知道，数学的证明必须是严谨的，每一个命题的论证必须用严谨的证明
来完成，那么，我们来欣赏一下蒋春暄在“天地生人”讲座上的一篇文章“纳米
建构的素数原理”（The Prime principle In Clusters And Nanostructures 
Chun-Xuan.Jiang）来看蒋的逻辑，由于篇幅的原因所以只摘取其中一段。

　　Why we have five fingers. We suggest two principles: (1) the prime 
principle and (2) the symmetric principle. We prove that 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 
23, 47, and 2, 4, 6, 10, 14, 22, 46, 94 are the most stable numbers, 
which are the basic building-blocks in clusters and nanostructures. 
The prime principle is the mathematical foundations for clusters and 
nanosciences.

　　Why do we have five fingers? We suggest two principles [1-8]:
　　(1) The prime principle. A prime number is irreducible over the 
integer field, it seems therefore natural to associate it with the 
most stable cluster in nature.
　　(2) The symmetric principle. Cluster of two stable prime numbers 
is then stable symmetric system in nature.
　　According to Euler function and stable group theory [3, 5], we 
have 
　　2P1 + 1 =P2   (1)
　　If  P1 is the most stable prime, then P2  also is the most stable 
prime. For example, 2x1+3 =prime, 2x3+1=7 =prime, 2x7+1=3x5 =no prime; 
2x2+1=5=prime,  2x5+1=11=prime, 2x11+1=23=prime, 2x23+1=47=prime,  
2x47+1=5x19 = no prime. From above calculations we come to conclusion 
that 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 23, 47, and 2, 4, 6, 10, 14, 22, 46, 94 are the 
most stable numbers, which are the basic building-blocks in clusters 
and nanostructures. Trigonal, tetragonal, pentagonal, hexagonal, 
heptagonal, decagonal, hendecagonal, 14-gonal, 22-gonal, 23-gonal, 
46-gonal, 47-gonal and 94-gonal are the most stable clusters, which 
are the basic building-blocks of polyhedra. 

　　这位蒋先生，首先提出两组the most stable numbers, 1 ,3 ,5, 7, 11, 
23 and 2, 4, 6, 10, 14, 22, 46….然后引人公式（1），并指出：If P1 is 
the most stable prime, then P2  also is the most stable prime.，然后给
出了精彩的例子：“For example,  2x1+3=prime,  2x3+1=7=prime, 2x7+1=3x5 
=no prime; ”嗯？怎么回事？为什么这里会有2x7+1=3x5 =no prime;？这里不
是已经把前面的话“If P1 is the most stable prime, then P2 also is the 
most stable prime.”，给证伪了吗？最为奇怪的是紧接着，我们的蒋先生有来
了句“From above calculations we come to conclusion that 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 
23, 47, and 2, 4, 6, 10, 14, 22, 46, 94 are the most stable numbers”
我怎么就死活没看出来上面的计算和证明这两组数are the most stable number
这一命题之间有什么关系呢？

　　所有以上的证明给人感觉整个逻辑都是混乱的，当然了，你思维不清，又不
想（或者没钱）进疯人院，你呆在家里好了，别出来就是了，没有任何人会来说
你什么，你也没有伤害到任何人的利益。可你偏偏还要出来，还要在北大科学传
播中心、天地生人等这样的“科普”网站来发表你的文章，这不是误人子弟吗？

　　总算明白了东郭先生的“为什么没有数学家出来驳斥蒋春暄的证明”，不过
我不是学数学的，但是基本的逻辑思维能力我还有，所以我可以来说说。这样的
文章，确实不需要数学家来驳斥的。

(XYS20051120)

◇◇新语丝(www.xys.org)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇