Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

19369Re: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Proving Sierpinski conjecture before SoB completes its task

Expand Messages
  • Phil Carmody
    May 19, 2008
      --- On Mon, 5/19/08, LĂ©lio Ribeiro de Paula <lelio73@...> wrote:
      > Jack Brennen wrote:
      > > Indeed, the prime of the form k+2^n might be in the
      > covering set for
      > > the numbers of the form k*2^n+1.
      >
      > No, it cannot.
      >
      > The covering sets of all known Riesel and Sierpinski
      > numbers are
      > exactly the same as that of their duals, as can be easily
      > seen.
      >
      > So if a prime for a dual of a Sierpinski number were to be
      > in the
      > covering set of that particular Sierpinski number, it
      > should also be
      > in the dual covering set as well, which contradicts the
      > definition of
      > covering sets.

      Now reread what Jack wrote (which was also going be in my original post too, but thinking that it was a bit obvious I removed it for brevity), and think a bit more.

      Phil
    • Show all 7 messages in this topic