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

Re: [PrimeNumbers] RE Unnecessary Primes

Expand Messages
  • ed pegg
    ... I have numerical evidence up to 30000. ... Of course I don t have a proof. :) I m appealing to just numerical evidence. I would be curious to see the
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 6 5:22 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- Jose Ram´┐Żn Brox <ambroxius@...> wrote:
      > And how do you know that there aren't even numbers bigger than 400 that
      > would need 11, 17... as necessary primes for achieve GC?

      I have numerical evidence up to 30000.

      > Do you have a proof? If not, how did you come to that claim?
      >
      > Jose Brox

      Of course I don't have a proof. :) I'm appealing to just numerical evidence.
      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
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.