Re: [PrimeNumbers] proving the Riemann hypothesis
- On 2/1/07, Phil Carmody <thefatphil@...> wrote:
>To further clarify for the original poster's benefit, of course there exist
> --- Shi Huang <shuangtheman@... <shuangtheman%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> > If the RH is false, the gap between prime P1 and the
> > next prime P2 could be anywhere from 1 to infinitely
> > large.
> False. Your attempt at a proof ends here.
arbitrarily large (greater than any chosen integer) gaps following primes.
This follows from the prime number theorem. There can be no infinite gaps,
however, or the prime preceding the gap would be the largest (finite) prime,
and we know that the number of primes is infinite.
Nathan, becoming active on the list again after a long absence.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- For example 2 adjacent gaps cannot be equal if they aren't multiple of
6. For example the gap between 2 pairs of twins is at least 4. For
example each prime number has the form 2n+/-1, 3n+/-1, 4n+/-1, 6n+/-1.
Each pair of twins has the form 12n+-1, there are approximate formulas
for the nth prime and the number of primes < x and so on. You cannot
call all this random ore unpredictable. Of course the prime numbers are
distributed as regularly as possible, that's a tautology. In
mathematics everything is as regular as possible. Is pi random? Build
P=2,357111317192329 , and you have the same case as pi. Consider the
primes to be an irrational number, and there are no problems. If you
mean there is no formula f(n) which produces primes for each n, then
you are right. In this sense primes are random. (I am not quite sure
there is a formula p=[k^n^3] (H.W.Mills) which is said to produce only
prime numbers). If you define "formula" as an algorithm, as a
calculation instruction such as the sieve of Eratosthenes, then the
primes are not random but simply what they are. Perhaps the compound
numbers are random? Or are they only non-transparently complicated?