Browse Groups

• ## Re: [PrimeNumbers] Primality of 6N +1

(5)
• NextPrevious
• ... Thanks for pointing this out, Tom. This shows that there is a hole in the statement of the theory. I should find a better way to state it. Actually there
Message 1 of 5 , Jun 25, 2001
View Source
Tom wrote:

>Something must be missing from this. Statements (i) and (ii) just don't
>work. See below for the statements.
>
>A counter-example for (i): Let N=28, k1=3. Let f=6k1+1 = 19. N/f leaves
>remainder 9, which is not equal to k1. However, 6N+1 which is 169, does
>have a factor of the form 6n+1, namely 13.
>
>What am I missing?
>
>

Thanks for pointing this out, Tom. This shows that there is a hole in the
statement of the theory. I should find a better way to state it.

Actually there is some 6k1 + 1 for which N/(6k1 + 1 leaves the remainder k1,
namely 13 = 6*2 + 1. 28 /13 leaves 2 as a remainder.

Frank also spots a mistake in the prove. This might also be true. About the
proof I am not that confident, OK.

Peter Lesala.
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
• Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
• Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer. We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.