Re: [PrimeNumbers] RE Unnecessary Primes
- --- Jose Ram�n Brox <ambroxius@...> wrote:
> And how do you know that there aren't even numbers bigger than 400 thatI have numerical evidence up to 30000.
> would need 11, 17... as necessary primes for achieve GC?
> Do you have a proof? If not, how did you come to that claim?Of course I don't have a proof. :) I'm appealing to just numerical evidence.
> Jose Brox
I would be curious to see the Unnecessary primes up to a million or so, perhaps
tested to a billion. Are there any patterns in them? What is their percentage?
I made a list of Unnecessary Triangular numbers for Gauss's tri+tri+tri=x for
any number x a few years back, and thought I would do the same for Prime
numbers and Goldbach's conjecture, just to see if they were already in OEIS.
--Ed Pegg Jr
> From: <ed@...>
> I claim that the following primes are unnecessary for GC.
> 11, 17, 29, 41, 59, 67, 71, 73, 89, 97, 103, 127, 137, 149, ...
> Here are the even numbers up to 400 expressed without these
> primes. Can anyone extend the list of Unnecessary Primes --
> or perhaps point out some even number where they are necessary?
> --Ed Pegg Jr