16148Re: Three questions??
- Mar 1, 2005--- In email@example.com, Chris Caldwell <caldwell@u...>
> At 01:43 PM 2/27/2005, Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho wrote:problem
> >> 2. Why do people choose to broadcast their solutions to this
> >> on the internet?chance in hell
> >Beats me. But it makes no difference, because anyone who had a
>that will eventually be in reputable journals is first circulated by
> Depends what you mean by broadcast. Virtually all mathematics
preprint; often on the Internet. Mathematicians often say if you
are waiting to read journals then you are two-years behind the
> Example: "Primes in P" was circulated on the net, gainedacceptance,
> was improved on repeatedly, all well before its first publication.corrections
> You circulate in any media to share what you have. Often you get
> and suggestions. Sometimes references that you missed. (AmateursI do hate to being called a crackpot by people who DON'T think what
> often miss the point of references--you must show you know how your
> works fits in with the current literature.)
> But if instead you mean why do they have "Goldbach Proof" websites.
> That is because no one would publish their trash. Audience is the
> key--who are you writing to?
Chris is saying here is a good way to gain acceptance. I just wish
there where more people who could help me when I have questions and
willing to help me find the answers. For example I have recieved the
following fowarded message which I can not answer. I wonder if any
of you can. If not who and where can I ask?
Can you answer the following?
From: John W. Nicholson <reddwarf2956@...>
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 7:24 PM
I have many question. ;-)
On your page with Fortunate numbers:
Is there a term for prime numbers not in both Fortunate number and
Fortunate number list? I am thinking of calling them unfortunate
Simular, but for primes that show up more than once, like 61 called
fortunate numbers. Are there an infinete number of both types?
Is there a relationship between composite pair of p#+/-1 and the
size of the
gap mentioned? With both of these numbers composite there is a large
between the less Fortunate number and the Fortunate number. How big
I know there is a relationship between the gap with p#+/-1 and the p!
I mean if p#+/-1 is prime, then there is a gap >= the gap of size p.
has a gap after p!+1 of at least p, realize that n!/n# = integer.
And For any N, the sequence (N + 1)! + 2, (N + 1)! + 3, ..., (N +
1)! + N + 1
the gap is of size n.
From: Paulo Ribenboim's book The Little Book of Big Primes. page 142
In your paper on http://primes.utm.edu/references/refs.cgi?
some proofs, namely theorems 2.4 and 2.5, which relates to p# or
some number <
p#, right? I mean there is a prime q which has the same congruences
to p! as to
Can you state theorems 2.4 and 2.5 on web pages connected
primes"? You might want to link the primorial prime pages to it to
Also, you might add to the page
http://primes.utm.edu/glossary/page.php?sort=PrimeGaps a comment
about the gap
stated above. I know that it is not the smallest gap because 89 is
the gap which follows the sum of two gaps larger than the n! gap.
With "sum of
two gaps" I mean while looking at largest number of the smallest
composites of the gap. This may sound confusing, so restating.
For a gap, d, for a prime number p_n to p_(n+1), there are d numbers
composite to primes smaller than p_n and p_(n+1). Each of these
a factor f_d which is the smallest factor. The largest f_d in the
gap makes the
final gap size d by summing the gap that was before and after. This
was for the
d after p_n there is another one for d before p_n too. Is there a
stated gap function with these terms? If not, why not?
More questions with http://primes.utm.edu/references/refs.cgi?
In Theorem 2.4 is
i) n divides 1!-1 and 0!-1
Why is this statement needed? I mean (1!-1)/n = 0 and (0!-1)/n = 0,
1) What reason are the other primes < 499 not listed?
2) Why are there pairs? (My guess is that there is a relationship
3) Is there a proof which states that the individual pairing (the
which p = n - k -1) is always even-even or odd-odd but the total
not have to be all even or all odd? Why are they not mixed?
4) With my guess with quadratic congruences, what is relationship
of the signs
of the units added with quadratic congruences?
5) No squares with pairings. Why? Also no n^m? Why, again?
6) Is there a correlation between the factor and the sign of the
7) Is there a correlation between the factorial and the sign of the
8) Is there a correlation between the k value and the sign of the
9) Are there tables of factors of factorial numbers n!+/-1
least to 4000, to get pass the Wilson and Wieferich primes 563,
1093, and 3511,
with and without the pairing)
10) With twins, how does the above questions relate?
11) I see with 16!+1 both 137 and 139 are factors, does this mean
twins? What about 16!+1 pairs 120!-1 and 122!-1?
12) I see with prime 61 both 16!+1 and 18!+1 are divisible
this mean anything with twins? Again, with the factorial pairs
13) What about with: Theorem: (Clement 1949)
The integers n, n+2, form a pair of twin primes if and only if
4[(n-1)!+1] = -n (mod n(n+2))?
How about with this theorem with the theorems 2.4 and 2.5 and the
From your page: http://primes.utm.edu/glossary/page.php?
sort=TwinPrime and the
book stated above too.
14) What about Wilson primes, is there anything relating them to
Can the theorem state in Q13) be combined with Proth's? Maybe some
other prime test, like Fermat's little theorem or a strong psp test?
Can you make a web page on the inclusion/exclusion principle
relitive to primes? You could show why all attempts so far with the
twin primes conjecture has failed.
- << Previous post in topic