20072Re: 2^m+3^n and 2^n+3^m
- Apr 13, 2009
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org,Wow, I am surprised you could go so high, so quickly. Very nice.
> "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
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! :)
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>