25124Re: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Unknown Mathematician Proves Elusive Property of Prime Numbers
- May 30, 2013I agree,
If we take two consecutive primes separated by a gap n, and prove that
there is an infinite quantity of consecutive pairs separated by such a gap
(as Dr. Zhang has proven for a gap below 70 million), it would be true too
for every other n because every imaginable n is equally infinitesimal with
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:05 PM, <whygee@...> wrote:
> Le 2013-05-30 15:11, Phil Carmody a �crit :
> > --- On Thu, 5/30/13, Maximilian Hasler <maximilian.hasler@...>
> > wrote:
> >> But of course the number 2 is the ultimate challenge, it is special
> >> in
> >> several ways, which partially may be, but aren't necessarily
> >> directly, a
> >> consequence of the fact that its the smallest possible gap.
> > Just thinking about it, falsity of the TPC would be deeply
> > disturbing.
> > Just imagine the concept of being given a prime, and then being able
> > to instantly determine the primality a different number without
> > knowing
> > any of its factors (in particular, knowing that it's composite).
> > That's even spookier than magnets.
> > Does anyone seriously doubt the TPC's truth?
> I don't and as mentioned by Jose, the de Polignac conjecture
> should be addressed too. I have serious reasons to think that
> TPC and dPC require the same demonstration and will be proved
> at the same time. It's easier than you might think but it is
> still a lot of work.
> > Phil
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>