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

19698Re: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Tightened-Lightened Goldbach Conjecture

Expand Messages
  • Bill Krys
    Nov 12, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark and Jens,
       
      thanks for trying. I am going to withdraw from the group for a while to tend to work, but I'll come back if I find anything or need more help. I'll try to see if either a continuous sequence of "N"s works starting from a higher integer and if no luck there, then I'll see if your idea of sequential fragments works, hopefully based on some easily predictable prime gaps because I don't like the idea of a prime gap I can't predict understand.
       
      P.S. Mark, sorry for causing your cognitive dissonance, but that's learnin', ain't it?

      Bill Krys

      This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal, and or privileged information. Please contact the sender immediately if you are not the intended recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take action relying on it. Any communication received in error, or subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed.

      --- On Sun, 11/9/08, Mark Underwood <mark.underwood@...> wrote:

      From: Mark Underwood <mark.underwood@...>
      Subject: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Tightened-Lightened Goldbach Conjecture
      To: primenumbers@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Sunday, November 9, 2008, 2:57 PM






      --- In primenumbers@ yahoogroups. com, "Mark Underwood"
      <mark.underwood@ ...> wrote:
      >
      > But lo and behold it worketh!:
      >
      >
      > (6,1) (7,4) (8,5) (9,2) (10,3) (11,6) (12,7)
      > (13,10) (14,9) (15,8) (16,13) (17,14) (18,11) (19,12)
      > (20,17) (21,16) (22,15) (23,0) (24,19) (25,22) (26,21)
      > (27,20) (28,25) (29,18) (30,23) (31,28) (32,29) (33,26)
      > (34,27) (35,24) (36,31) (37,34) (38,35) (39,32) (40,33)
      > (41,48) (42,37) (43,40) (44,39) (45,38) (46,43) (47,36)
      > (48,41) (49,30) (50,47) (51,46) (52,45) (53,50) (54,49)
      > (55,52) (56,51) (57,44) (58,55) (59,54) (60,53) (61,42)
      >
      >
      > Mark
      >

      Lo and behold it doesn't. Jen noticed that (41,48) yields a negative
      'prime', so is bad. Now, I have to determine if this whole exercise
      actually caused my mental decline, or whether it was a pre existing
      condition.

      Mark















      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 11 messages in this topic