Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
Browse Groups

• ... http://shakespeare.mit.edu/lear/lear.5.3.html Never, never, never, never, never! David (who does not have reliable record using this quote)
Message 1 of 12 , Aug 30
View Source
--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, Bob Gilson <bobgillson@...> wrote:
>
> I noticed that the sequence of even numbers 30,,60,90,120,150,180 ... has some strange properties.
>
> 30 has two partitions 13:17 and 11:19, which gives the Twin Primes 11,13 and 17,19
> 60 has two partitions 17:43 and 19:41, which gives the Twin Primes 17,19 and 41,43
>
> Similarly for 90, 120, 150, 180.
>
> I presume that this pattern must break down at some point - could someone tell me where?

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/lear/lear.5.3.html
Never, never, never, never, never!

David (who does not have reliable record using this quote)
• ... If this is the case then isn t this a proof of the twin primes conjecture ? Just asking...
Message 1 of 12 , Aug 30
View Source
Le 2013-08-31 01:06, djbroadhurst a écrit :
> --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, Bob Gilson <bobgillson@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> I noticed that the sequence of even numbers 30,,60,90,120,150,180
>> ... has some strange properties.
>>
>> 30 has two partitions 13:17 and 11:19, which gives the Twin Primes
>> 11,13 and 17,19
>> 60 has two partitions 17:43 and 19:41, which gives the Twin Primes
>> 17,19 and 41,43
>>
>> Similarly for 90, 120, 150, 180.
>>
>> I presume that this pattern must break down at some point - could
>> someone tell me where?
>
> http://shakespeare.mit.edu/lear/lear.5.3.html
> Never, never, never, never, never!
>
> David (who does not have reliable record using this quote)

If this is the case then isn't this a proof of the twin primes
conjecture ?

• ... David is almost certainly right here. Twin primes aren t that rare. See Harvey Dubner s Twin Prime Conjectures : http://oeis.org/A007534/a007534.pdf See
Message 1 of 12 , Aug 30
View Source
Bob Gilson wrote:
> I presume that this pattern must break down at some point - could
> someone tell me where?

David is almost certainly right here. Twin primes aren't that rare.
See Harvey Dubner's "Twin Prime Conjectures":
http://oeis.org/A007534/a007534.pdf
and http://oeis.org/A179825 which probably only has those 11 terms.
None of them are multiples of 30 (that's no coincidence; small factors
improve the odds).
But the keyword "fini" (a finite sequence) seems inappropriate
when it's only a conjecture. If conjectured keywords are
acceptable then you might as well go full out and say "full" (the full
sequence is given).
http://oeis.org/A007534 also claims "fini" and then says
"Conjectured to be complete" in the extensions field.

--
Jens Kruse Andersen
• I can give you the beginning of the full sequence. It is
Message 1 of 12 , Aug 30
View Source
I can give you the beginning of the full sequence.

It is 10,16,18,22,24,30,34,36,42,46,48,54,60,64,66,72,76,78,84,90,102,106,108,112,114,120,126,132,138,142,144,150,156,158,168,180,198,210,240,246 . . .

That is as far as paper and pencil takes me, and I might have made some typo errors.

Incidentally, I have not laid claim to any proof of anything whatsoever.

I just wanted to know how far primorial 30 extends into this realm.

Kind regards

Bob

On 31 Aug 2013, at 01:06, "Jens Kruse Andersen" <jens.k.a@...> wrote:

> Bob Gilson wrote:
> > I presume that this pattern must break down at some point - could
> > someone tell me where?
>
> David is almost certainly right here. Twin primes aren't that rare.
> See Harvey Dubner's "Twin Prime Conjectures":
> http://oeis.org/A007534/a007534.pdf
> and http://oeis.org/A179825 which probably only has those 11 terms.
> None of them are multiples of 30 (that's no coincidence; small factors
> improve the odds).
> But the keyword "fini" (a finite sequence) seems inappropriate
> when it's only a conjecture. If conjectured keywords are
> acceptable then you might as well go full out and say "full" (the full
> sequence is given).
> http://oeis.org/A007534 also claims "fini" and then says
> "Conjectured to be complete" in the extensions field.
>
> --
> Jens Kruse Andersen
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• ... No. The twin prime conjecture is based on the heuristic that n increases faster than log(n)^2. The present conjecture is based on the heuristic that n
Message 1 of 12 , Aug 30
View Source
--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, whygee@... wrote:

> If this is the case then isn't this a proof of the twin primes
> conjecture ?

No. The twin prime conjecture is based on the heuristic
that n increases faster than log(n)^2.

The present conjecture is based on the heuristic
that n increases faster than log(n)^4.

You can keep on going, piling on extra conditions.
In general, every constellation that is not forbidden
is expected to occur an infinite number of times.

David
•  Wow!  The home pages of the groups just got incredibly ugly and dysfunctional in a complete appearance and function change which made it way worse
Message 1 of 12 , Aug 31
View Source
Wow!  The home pages of the groups just got incredibly ugly and dysfunctional in a complete appearance and function change which made it way worse and also deleted the "pictures" (a big picture of the number 2, in the case of primenumbers). Plus there are now giant ads obscuring most of the screen. Is yahoo intentionally trying to make everybody go away? --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, <david.broadhurst@...> wrote: --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com , whygee@... wrote:

> If this is the case then isn't this a proof of the twin primes
> conjecture ?

No. The twin prime conjecture is based on the heuristic
that n increases faster than log(n)^2.

The present conjecture is based on the heuristic
that n increases faster than log(n)^4.

You can keep on going, piling on extra conditions.
In general, every constellation that is not forbidden
is expected to occur an infinite number of times.

David
• ... I jump straight to http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/primenumbers/messages which seems for the time being to be ad-free. David
Message 1 of 12 , Sep 1
View Source
--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, <warren.wds@...> wrote:

>  Wow!  The home pages of the groups just got incredibly ugly and dysfunctional

I jump straight to
which seems for the time being to be ad-free.

David
•  In case I never am able to contact you chaps again, because of Yahoo (Boohoo), it has been a pleasure to know you all.
Message 1 of 12 , Sep 1
View Source
In case I never am able to contact you chaps again, because of Yahoo (Boohoo), it has been a pleasure to know you all.
--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com , <warren.wds@...> wrote: >  Wow!  The home pages of the groups just got incredibly ugly and dysfunctional I jump straight to http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/primenumbers/messages which seems for the time being to be ad-free. David
•  I tried David's workaround, but the bastewards change the "groups" to "neo/groups". I am furious about this! ...  In case I
Message 1 of 12 , Sep 1
View Source
I tried David's workaround, but the bastewards change the "groups" to "neo/groups". I am furious about this!
--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, <mistermac39@...> wrote:
In case I never am able to contact you chaps again, because of Yahoo (Boohoo), it has been a pleasure to know you all.   --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com , <david.broadhurst@...> wrote: --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com , <warren.wds@...> wrote: >  Wow!  The home pages of the groups just got incredibly ugly and dysfunctional I jump straight to http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/primenumbers/messages which seems for the time being to be ad-free. David
• ... Try starting at http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/ It seems to be a US/UK thing at present. But no doubt they will make this pond-side suffer like you, real soon.
Message 1 of 12 , Sep 1
View Source
--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, <mistermac39@...> wrote:

>  I tried David's workaround, but the bastewards
> change the "groups" to "neo/groups".

Try starting at

http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/

It seems to be a US/UK thing at present.
But no doubt they will make this pond-side
suffer like you, real soon.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26251.html

David
• ... I looked to see if managers can keep their groups classic . Seems not: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/GroupManagersForum/message/43342 et seqq. David
Message 1 of 12 , Sep 1
View Source
>
> --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, <mistermac39@> wrote:
>
> >  I tried David's workaround, but the bastewards
> > change the "groups" to "neo/groups".
>
> Try starting at
>
> http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/

I looked to see if managers can keep their groups "classic". Seems not:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/GroupManagersForum/message/43342
et seqq.

David
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.