Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

## 23294Re: A question

Expand Messages
• Sep 30, 2011
--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <mark.underwood@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Dimiter Skordev" <skordev@> wrote:
> >
> > Let A be the least set of natural numbers with the following two properties:
> > (i) the number 1 belongs to A;
> > (ii) whenever x belongs to A, and y is a prime divisor of x+1, the product x*y also belongs to A.
> > Let us call a prime number Euclid-style accessible if it is a divisor of some number belonging to A. Are there prime numbers that are not Euclid-style accessible, and if there are such ones, which is the least among them?
> >
>
> I can't think of a reason why any prime would be excluded from being a factor of numbers in the set. I've only gone 5 'deep', and thus far 19 is the only prime < 29 that hasn't shown up yet. 11 and 17 were late to the party, but they eventually surfaced at depth 5. Have you gone further?
>
> Mark
>

No, I have not gone even to that depth.
• Show all 12 messages in this topic