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

Re: [PrimeNumbers] Polynomial and primes

Expand Messages
  • Joshua Zucker
    ... If I understand correctly, then the proof mentioned at http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LuckyNumberofEuler.html shows that there is no number 41 that works
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 5, 2006
      On 12/5/06, 逢绥 刘 <liu_f_s@...> wrote:
      > Example: we have not proved that there is number a > 41 such that
      >
      > x^2 �Cx +a represents primes for x=0,1,2,…,a. If we find such number a or prove there
      >
      > is such number a, then there are infinitely many number x such that x^2 �Cx +a represents
      >
      > primes for x=0,1,2,…,a.

      If I understand correctly, then the proof mentioned at
      http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LuckyNumberofEuler.html
      shows that there is no number > 41 that works here (though of course
      you meant not to include a in the list, since a^2 - a + a is surely
      not prime).

      --Joshua Zucker
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.