Hi Adam,

Aldrich's conjecture:

>> If x > 3 and k > x , then A(x) will be prime if no value

>> T(k) exists such that 1 < T(k) < B(x) is a square.

Adam's proposed counterexample:

> When x=9, k=10, then A(9)=361 is not prime, T(10)=361 is a square,

> 10=k > x=9, 9=x >3, T(k) = 361 is between 1 and B(x)=1681.

Umm... pardon me? How does this contradict Aldrich's conjecture? As far as

I understood the claim, A(x) is claimed to -be a prime- under the

assumption that -no- value of T(k) between 1 and B(x) is a square.

Peter

--

[Name] Peter Kosinar [Quote] 2B | ~2B = exp(i*PI) [ICQ] 134813278