User blog comment:Alemagno12/BM2 has a problem/@comment-30754445-20180724073311/@comment-126.170.82.97-20180726094412

@PsiCubed2

Well, anyway it is a problem on the meaning of "evidence" in the natural language. And I am not realy believing that RH (resp. Goldbach conjecture) is true. What I believe is just it is true, false, or independent of \(\textrm{ZFC}\). I never believe a conjecture to be true before someone verify it. But... I always feel funny and fantastic if it is independent. Mathematics often show me funny results. (You might know that the independence of RH is unprovable by forcing preserving the interpretation of \(\in\). Some mathematicians say that it is an "evidence" of the dependence, but I do not think so. I believe nothing other than proofs.)

> (1) Getting your first counter-example after a mere 40 tries is hardly mind-boggling.

Ok. It might be a bad example for you. I am sorry, but I feel 41 (or any other computable large numbers) as tiny as \(BB(10^{100})\). I am mainly living in the uncomputable world :D

And I like Euler's function, too. Moreover, I like any well-defined natural numbers and functions!