17059Re: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Brocard's Conjecture, and other notes
- Oct 7, 2005After 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:
where r(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.
- Jeremy Wood
--- Patrick Capelle <patrick.capelle@...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, 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
> > 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 =
> Patrick Capelle.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>