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

25124Re: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Unknown Mathematician Proves Elusive Property of Prime Numbers

Expand Messages
  • Jose Angel Gonzalez
    May 30, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I 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
      respect infinite.


      On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:05 PM, <whygee@...> wrote:

      > **
      >
      >
      > Hello,
      >
      > 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
      > Yann
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic