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

Re: Important prime number relationship

Expand Messages
  • Mark Underwood
    ... Putting aside that there is no solution for the prime 2, the first few cases where it does not hold are p = 101, 173 and 367. (Nice try though!) Mark
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 9, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "jcmtnez90" <jcmtnez90@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > This means that at one(at least one) or more of these four
      > relationships must be hold for every prime number:
      >
      > (Pb*Pa)+(Pb+Pa)
      > (Pb*Pa)+(Pb-Pa)
      > (Pb*Pa)-(Pb+Pa)
      > (Pb*Pa)-(Pb-Pa)
      >

      Putting aside that there is no solution for the prime 2, the first few
      cases where it does not hold are p = 101, 173 and 367. (Nice try
      though!)

      Mark
    • jcmtnez90
      You are right, therefore I will change the conjecture to every prime greater than 2.
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 9, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        You are right, therefore I will change the conjecture to every prime
        greater than 2.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.