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

20072Re: 2^m+3^n and 2^n+3^m

Expand Messages
  • Mark Underwood
    Apr 13, 2009
      > --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,
      > "David Broadhurst" <d.broadhurst@> wrote:
      >
      > > "Numbers n such that there are no primes of the forms
      > > 2^m+3^n or 2^n+3^m for m < n"
      >
      > These numbers include
      >
      > 1679, 1743, 4980, 4982, 5314, 5513, 5695, 6100, 7251, 8218
      >

      Wow, I am surprised you could go so high, so quickly. Very nice.

      Some days after you presented the first two numbers, 1679 and 1743,
      it occurred to me that the difference between them is 64 = 2^6.
      Made me wonder if there might be a special "2-3" property to these
      numbers themselves. But with the additional numbers it seems not.
      Of course, if I stumble upon something I'll let you know! :)

      Thanks David,

      Mark
    • Show all 22 messages in this topic