- --- 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. - Thanks. 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.

>

>

>

> - 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.

>

>

>

> - Sigh. 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.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>