- View SourceHi everyone... I just joined the list.

I wrote a little paper on primes recently, offering an informal proof

of Brocard's Conjecture. a few notes on twin primes. and other

observations.

I was wondering if people on this list could look it over and let me

know... well... if it has any merit. I'm competent at math, but

proofs and high level math are a little foreign to me...

http://homepage.mac.com/bricolage1/essays/

- Jeremy Wood

P.S. Every time I proofread it I find at least one new typo... if

you notice any typos, or want to discuss a particular part at length,

please email me directly so we don't clutter up the list. - View Source--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, Jeremy <mickleness@y...> wrote:
>

Hello Jeremy,

> Hi everyone... I just joined the list.

>

> I wrote a little paper on primes recently, offering an informal proof

> of Brocard's Conjecture. a few notes on twin primes. and other

> observations.

>

> I was wondering if people on this list could look it over and let me

> know... well... if it has any merit. I'm competent at math, but

> proofs and high level math are a little foreign to me...

>

> http://homepage.mac.com/bricolage1/essays/

>

At the beginning of your proof of Brocard's conjecture,you wrote :

"Well if d-b >= k, and a >= b and c >= d, then surely c-a >= k ".

Surely not.There are cases where c-a < k.

Take for instance a = 5, b = 2, c = 7, d = 6 and k = 3.

Regards,

Patrick Capelle. - View SourceThanks. Hmmm... yeah I was suspect of that one.

Back to square one. It still seems like the earlier

expression involving pi((p(i+1)^2) really should lend

itself to an insight into brocard's conjecture.

- Jeremy Wood

--- Patrick Capelle <patrick.capelle@...> wrote:

> --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, Jeremy

> <mickleness@y...> wrote:

> >

> > Hi everyone... I just joined the list.

> >

> > I wrote a little paper on primes recently,

> offering an informal proof

> > of Brocard's Conjecture. a few notes on twin

> primes. and other

> > observations.

> >

> > I was wondering if people on this list could look

> it over and let me

> > know... well... if it has any merit. I'm

> competent at math, but

> > proofs and high level math are a little foreign to

> me...

> >

> > http://homepage.mac.com/bricolage1/essays/

> >

>

>

> Hello Jeremy,

>

> At the beginning of your proof of Brocard's

> conjecture,you wrote :

> "Well if d-b >= k, and a >= b and c >= d, then

> surely c-a >= k ".

> Surely not.There are cases where c-a < k.

> Take for instance a = 5, b = 2, c = 7, d = 6 and k =

> 3.

>

> Regards,

> Patrick Capelle.

>

>

>

> - View SourceAfter work I'll revisit everything again. In the

meantime I kept the file online, but put red notes

around the incorrect section.

But the paper still points out -- although it doesn't

formally prove -- that:

pi(p(i+1)^2)>=r(i)*(p(i+1)^2)+i-1

where r(i) =

(p(1)-1)/p(1)*(p(2)-1)/p(2)*...(p(i)-1)/p(i)

If anyone has any thoughts as to how one could apply

this towards Brocard's Conjecture, please let me know.

Or if this is also flawed, please let me know.

Cheers

- Jeremy Wood

--- Patrick Capelle <patrick.capelle@...> wrote:

> --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, Jeremy

> <mickleness@y...> wrote:

> >

> > Hi everyone... I just joined the list.

> >

> > I wrote a little paper on primes recently,

> offering an informal proof

> > of Brocard's Conjecture. a few notes on twin

> primes. and other

> > observations.

> >

> > I was wondering if people on this list could look

> it over and let me

> > know... well... if it has any merit. I'm

> competent at math, but

> > proofs and high level math are a little foreign to

> me...

> >

> > http://homepage.mac.com/bricolage1/essays/

> >

>

>

> Hello Jeremy,

>

> At the beginning of your proof of Brocard's

> conjecture,you wrote :

> "Well if d-b >= k, and a >= b and c >= d, then

> surely c-a >= k ".

> Surely not.There are cases where c-a < k.

> Take for instance a = 5, b = 2, c = 7, d = 6 and k =

> 3.

>

> Regards,

> Patrick Capelle.

>

>

>

> - View SourceSigh. Nevermind... taking the link down.

The other expression is also flawed... it fails badly

when i exceeds 35 (that is, (p(i))^2=22201).

Back to the drawing board...

--- Jeremy Wood <mickleness@...> wrote:

> After work I'll revisit everything again. In the

> meantime I kept the file online, but put red notes

> around the incorrect section.

>

> But the paper still points out -- although it

> doesn't

> formally prove -- that:

> pi(p(i+1)^2)>=r(i)*(p(i+1)^2)+i-1

> where r(i) =

> (p(1)-1)/p(1)*(p(2)-1)/p(2)*...(p(i)-1)/p(i)

>

> If anyone has any thoughts as to how one could apply

> this towards Brocard's Conjecture, please let me

> know.

> Or if this is also flawed, please let me know.

>

> Cheers

> - Jeremy Wood

>

> --- Patrick Capelle <patrick.capelle@...>

> wrote:

>

> > --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, Jeremy

> > <mickleness@y...> wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi everyone... I just joined the list.

> > >

> > > I wrote a little paper on primes recently,

> > offering an informal proof

> > > of Brocard's Conjecture. a few notes on twin

> > primes. and other

> > > observations.

> > >

> > > I was wondering if people on this list could

> look

> > it over and let me

> > > know... well... if it has any merit. I'm

> > competent at math, but

> > > proofs and high level math are a little foreign

> to

> > me...

> > >

> > > http://homepage.mac.com/bricolage1/essays/

> > >

> >

> >

> > Hello Jeremy,

> >

> > At the beginning of your proof of Brocard's

> > conjecture,you wrote :

> > "Well if d-b >= k, and a >= b and c >= d, then

> > surely c-a >= k ".

> > Surely not.There are cases where c-a < k.

> > Take for instance a = 5, b = 2, c = 7, d = 6 and k

> =

> > 3.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Patrick Capelle.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>