Hi Gerald,

I m not a mathguy, but i would like to show you a different approach,

which brings up rather similar findings regarding to multiples of 210,

surrounded by +/- six prime-candidates.

Paint on paper a sieve

(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes ) with the wide of

a primorial (

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primorial ). In your case

2x3x5x7. Now wipe out only all mulitples of 2, 3 and 5. It will result

into a sieve with straight lines down. Straight lines down mean, that

beside that lines you get allways potential primes, which are

definetly not multiples of 2,3,5. Also it creates a pattern, which you

can express in multiples of [210 +/-(1,7,11,13,17,19,23,29)] Compare

it with your findings now.

I dont know how you came up with your formula, but I think the

primorial-way is an alternative possibility to get the same in result?

It should also be possible to have similar findings in other primorial

ranges. So for example you may find (but it shouldnt be so easy)

Primes-patterns within Multiples of (2310 +/- (all whats left if you

wipe out all multiples of 2,3,5,7 within range of 2310)). The problem

is, as higher as you step on, you will get within that pattern mostly

only potential primes, which turn out as composits of primes higher

than for example 2,3,5,7 in the 2310-example later.

I wounder for some time now, why this connection isnt used regulary in

computer-searches for great primes, but i guess it has some cpu-reason...

(Sorry if I got something wrong, someone correct me then, i just like

the pattern-part of numbers, in general math I got actually pretty bad

marks in school and with computer science you can hunt me =p)

Johannes