6214Re: [PrimeNumbers] Twin primes was: Infinite primes
- Mar 30, 2002--- David Litchfield <Mnemonix@...> wrote:
> > This is purported to be the original, although I fail to see why[...]
> -1 wasn't
> > used instead.
> Yep. The reason I ask was because this could prove the twin prime
> If q= P1 * P2 * ... Pn + 1
> then q is prime because q mod and Pn is 1.
> That said in _reality_ q and r could both be composite - with twocould, and most of the time are.
> or more
> primes not in P1 to Pn being the factors.
> But then this isIf you have the choice between reality and a hypothetical situation,
> confusing reality
> with a hypothetical situtation
go with reality. Then there's no confusion.
> so does this proof for the twinIt's not a proof, so it doesn't stand anywhere.
> conjecture stand in the same way the Euclid's proof is accepted.
> AtLet e be a multiple of 6. Sometimes e+1 is prime. Sometimes e-1 is
> this proves the twin prime conjecture - at worst it proves at least
> possibility of an infinite number of twin primes.
The above "proves the possibility of an infinite number of twin
primes" to the same extent as your contruction. However, it doesn't
actually prove anything at all, as the whole thing about twins is the
simulaneity aspect, and that issue isn't addressed at all.
If predicate X(n) is satisfied for all even n, and predicate Y(n) is
statisfied for all odd n, even though there are an infinite number of
solutions to X and Y individually, we can't say _anything_ about the
likelyhood of simultanious satisfaction of X and Y.
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for Easter, Passover
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>