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]