After work I'll revisit everything again. In the

meantime I kept the file online, but put red notes

around the incorrect section.

But the paper still points out -- although it doesn't

formally prove -- that:

pi(p(i+1)^2)>=r(i)*(p(i+1)^2)+i-1

where r(i) =

(p(1)-1)/p(1)*(p(2)-1)/p(2)*...(p(i)-1)/p(i)

If anyone has any thoughts as to how one could apply

this towards Brocard's Conjecture, please let me know.

Or if this is also flawed, please let me know.

Cheers

- Jeremy Wood

--- Patrick Capelle <

patrick.capelle@...> wrote:

> --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, Jeremy

> <mickleness@y...> wrote:

> >

> > Hi everyone... I just joined the list.

> >

> > I wrote a little paper on primes recently,

> offering an informal proof

> > of Brocard's Conjecture. a few notes on twin

> primes. and other

> > observations.

> >

> > I was wondering if people on this list could look

> it over and let me

> > know... well... if it has any merit. I'm

> competent at math, but

> > proofs and high level math are a little foreign to

> me...

> >

> > http://homepage.mac.com/bricolage1/essays/

> >

>

>

> Hello Jeremy,

>

> At the beginning of your proof of Brocard's

> conjecture,you wrote :

> "Well if d-b >= k, and a >= b and c >= d, then

> surely c-a >= k ".

> Surely not.There are cases where c-a < k.

> Take for instance a = 5, b = 2, c = 7, d = 6 and k =

> 3.

>

> Regards,

> Patrick Capelle.

>

>

>

>