## [PrimeNumbers] Re: distance between prime tuples

Expand Messages
• ... I have computed the 4 smallest x such that these 14 are all primes: x +/- 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 A PrimeForm/GW input file with x values in {. . . .} :
Message 1 of 7 , Jun 1, 2005
• 0 Attachment
Mark Underwood wrote:

> And for the tuple
>
> x-64, x-32, x-16, x-8, x-4, x-2, x+2, x+4, x+8, x+16, x+32, x+64
>
> x must have a factor of 3,5,7,11,13.

I have computed the 4 smallest x such that these 14 are all primes:
x +/- 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128

A PrimeForm/GW input file with x values in {. . . .} :

ABC2 \$b+2^\$a & \$b-2^\$a
a: from 1 to 7
b: in {93487500801880185 539493168332973855 635219113875010665
892427005980104595}

My tuplet finder used 5 GHz hours with prp'ing by the GMP library.
I was surprised to see that the primes are consecutive for the smallest,
x = 93487500801880185.

--
Jens Kruse Andersen
• ... A Google search on 93487500801880185 reveals that it was first found by Jim: http://www.primepuzzles.net/puzzles/puzz_167.htm Phil then found
Message 2 of 7 , Jun 1, 2005
• 0 Attachment
I wrote:
> x +/- 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128
> x = 93487500801880185.

A Google search on 93487500801880185 reveals that it was first found by Jim:
http://www.primepuzzles.net/puzzles/puzz_167.htm

Phil then found 64606701602327559675 +/- 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256

So I'm 3 years late and didn't even rediscover the best result :-(
Extending to +/- 512 is too hard for me.

--
Jens Kruse Andersen
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.