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

Re: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Brocard's Conjecture, and other notes

Expand Messages
  • Jeremy Wood
    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
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 7, 2005
      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.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.