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

Re: [PrimeNumbers] New Type of Prime Arithmetic Progression?

Expand Messages
  • w_sindelar@juno.com
    ... Jens, I think I may have offended you by writing I m lost here. Seems like a convoluted approach. Looking back at this, I can see that it can be taken as
    Message 1 of 12 , Sep 29, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Sindelar wrote:
      > > I'm lost here. Seems like a convoluted approach.

      Andersen wrote:
      > You asked for comments on your statement (which is an unproven
      > guess). I briefly showed that it would follow from a well-known
      > and trusted conjecture, sometimes called the prime k-tuple
      > conjecture
      > (that name is sometimes restricted to special cases). Of course
      > it's
      > less "convoluted" to not relate your guess to anything else like
      > previously studied things. If you want something unconvoluted
      > (but not very useful by itself) then here it is: I guess your guess
      > is
      > right.

      Jens, I think I may have offended you by writing "I'm lost here. Seems
      like a convoluted approach." Looking back at this, I can see that it can
      be taken as arrogant criticism. Gad, that is not what I meant it to be. I
      should have written "I am unable to follow your explanation. It seems
      complicated to me because I know nothing about admissible prime
      constellations, but I accept your opinion". I regret my choice of words
      and hope you accept my sincere apology.

      Sindelar wrote in regard to Green and Tao:
      >>>To me, this is a very broad claim covering any type of (PAP-k, n).
      Jens can you explain your answer a bit more?

      Andersen wrote:
      > Just to be clear: My "No" was only to your second sentence:
      > "I would interpret Green and Tao as covering this type. (meaning
      (PAP-k, n=0))"
      >
      > You defined (PAP-k, n) as a PAP-k with n primes between each of
      > the k-1 pairs of successive primes in the AP. Tao and Green don't
      > mention this concept of equal prime counts and their theorem says
      > nothing about your (PAP-k, n) for n=0 or any other n value.
      > I don't know what else you want me to explain.
      > All I can say is that the theorem simply doesn't say it.

      Jens thank you. Nothing more to explain. You made it clear that the Green
      and Tao theorem does not apply to type (PAP-k, n=0 or greater). And thank
      you for an example of a (PAP-8, 5). Don't know how you calculated that so
      quickly. I was beginning to think there might be a limit on k.

      Bill Sindelar

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • w_sindelar@juno.com
      On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:55:00 -0000 elevensmooth ... I m glad you did, and I thank you. You must be a mind reader. You somehow sensed why I got lost trying to
      Message 2 of 12 , Sep 29, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:55:00 -0000 "elevensmooth"
        <elevensmooth@...> writes:
        > --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, w_sindelar@... wrote:
        >
        > > Jens can you explain your answer a bit more?

        William Lipp wrote:
        > I'll try.

        I'm glad you did, and I thank you. You must be a mind reader. You somehow
        sensed why I got lost trying to follow Jens reasoning. Right off the bat
        I'm confronted with "admissible prime constellations" and right there I'm
        lost.

        Your neat little introductory on this greatly helped me understand what
        Jens meant. I'm going to study this concept in more detail. Regards with
        appreciation.

        Bill Sindelar
      • w_sindelar@juno.com
        On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:55:00 -0000 elevensmooth ... I m glad you did, and I thank you. You must be a mind reader. You somehow sensed why I got lost trying to
        Message 3 of 12 , Sep 29, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:55:00 -0000 "elevensmooth"
          <elevensmooth@...> writes:
          > --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, w_sindelar@... wrote:
          >
          > > Jens can you explain your answer a bit more?

          William Lipp wrote:
          > I'll try.

          I'm glad you did, and I thank you. You must be a mind reader. You somehow
          sensed why I got lost trying to follow Jens reasoning. Right off the bat
          I'm confronted with "admissible prime constellations" and right there I'm
          lost.

          Your neat little introductory on this greatly helped me understand what
          Jens meant. I'm going to study this concept in more detail. Regards with
          appreciation.

          Bill Sindelar
        • Jens Kruse Andersen
          ... No problem. You can search more information about admissible constellations with a search engine. If a prime p
          Message 4 of 12 , Sep 29, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Bill Sindelar wrote:
            > Jens, I think I may have offended you by writing "I'm lost here. Seems
            > like a convoluted approach."

            No problem. You can search more information about admissible constellations
            with a search engine.

            If a prime p <= k does not divide the common difference in an AP-k then
            p will divide at least one of the terms in the AP. In order to be
            admissible, a PAP-k must therefore have a common difference which is
            a multiple of k# (k primorial).
            I guess a PAP-k with small difference (and therefore relatively few primes
            between the terms) will have a better chance of being a (PAP-k, n),
            because the number of primes can vary between fewer values.
            A PAP-11 has minimal difference 11# = 2310, so 10 intervals of 2309
            numbers must have the same prime count to produce a (PAP-11, n)
            with minimal difference. That appears computationally too hard for me.

            PAP-7 to PAP-10 all have minimal difference 10# = 7# = 210.
            I used my old tuplet finder to systematically search a lot of PAP-10 with
            difference 210 and count whether there happened to be an equal number
            of primes between the terms. There were other things to use my only
            computer for so the search stopped when only (PAP-8, n) had been found.
            Hans Rosenthal is more patient and has found many (PAP-9, 0), also called
            CPAP-9, with a version of the same program. (PAP-9, n>3) looks easier.
            In 2004 he found the smallest known CPAP-8 = (PAP-8, 0) with
            another version. I just tested the other PAP-8 from the search and found
            a (PAP-8, 1) with difference 210:
            64881326075217862991473794035228920286672784697 +
            0,36,210,264,420,564,630,784,840,942,1050,1086,1260,1360,1470

            --
            Jens Kruse Andersen
          • w_sindelar@juno.com
            ... I m relieved. I was trying to get up some nerve to ask you what sort of ... I just tested the other PAP-8 from the search and ... equivalent to the above
            Message 5 of 12 , Oct 2, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Jens K. Anderson wrote:
              > No problem. You can...
              >>

              I'm relieved. I was trying to get up some nerve to ask you what sort of
              approach you used on (PAP-8, 5) when your mail arrived with the answer:

              > I used my old tuplet finder to systematically search a lot of PAP-10
              > with
              > difference 210 and count whether there happened to be an equal
              > number
              > of primes between the terms. There were other things to use my only
              > computer for so the search stopped when only (PAP-8, n) had been
              > found.
              I just tested the other PAP-8 from the search and
              > found
              > a (PAP-8, 1) with difference 210:
              > 64881326075217862991473794035228920286672784697 +
              > 0,36,210,264,420,564,630,784,840,942,1050,1086,1260,1360,1470

              Sindelar wrote (Yahoo #19096):

              >>The approach I used required making the following assumption, which is
              equivalent to the above statement; Let S(p, n) represent an infinite
              subset of the universal set of all consecutive odd primes, where p is the
              first prime of the subset, and n (including 0) represents the number of
              consecutive primes from the universal set that have been omitted between
              adjacent primes of the subset.Then any S(p, n) contains a set of any
              number k of primes in arithmetic progression. The program I wrote is
              based on this.>

              I used Pari-gp for this. For every set of k consecutive primes, which has
              n skipped consecutive primes between its adjacent terms, after an
              inputted integer, it checks if the terms of that set are in arithmetic
              progression. Jens, is this slower than your approach with your tuplet
              finder? If one could prove the above assumption, would that also prove
              that all admissible prime constellations have infinitely many occurrences
              as you put it, or only those that have a (PAP-k, n) subset?

              Sindelar wrote (Yahoo #19093):

              >>Obviously, the ordinal numbers of the primes in such a PAP are also in
              arithmetic progression (AP) with a constant difference of (n+1).>

              This suggested trying this assumption which is just a fancy way of
              defining a (PAP-k, n): In any infinite arithmetic progression of positive
              integers with a common difference d, there exists a subset of k
              consecutive integers, so that if each integer in that subset is
              considered to represent the ordinal number of a prime, the associated
              primes will be in arithmetic progression of length k with (d-1)
              consecutive primes between adjacent terms of that arithmetic progression.
              (Ordinal number of a prime means its position in the numerically ordered
              set of all primes, with prime 2 being number 1). It works but is more
              computationally complicated. What do you think?

              Bill Sindelar

              Bill Sindelar
            • Jens Kruse Andersen
              ... I would expect your method to be much slower based on how randomly consecutive prime gaps appear to be distributed. ... No, and also no to the only-part.
              Message 6 of 12 , Oct 2, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Bill Sindelar wrote:
                > I used Pari-gp for this. For every set of k consecutive primes, which has
                > n skipped consecutive primes between its adjacent terms, after an
                > inputted integer, it checks if the terms of that set are in arithmetic
                > progression. Jens, is this slower than your approach with your tuplet
                > finder?

                I would expect your method to be much slower based on how
                "randomly" consecutive prime gaps appear to be distributed.

                > If one could prove the above assumption, would that also prove
                > that all admissible prime constellations have infinitely many occurrences
                > as you put it, or only those that have a (PAP-k, n) subset?

                No, and also no to the only-part. Your assumption says nothing
                about the existence of specific differences between primes,
                so it says nothing about any admissible constellation.

                > This suggested trying this assumption which is just a fancy way of
                > defining a (PAP-k, n):
                .....
                > It works but is more
                > computationally complicated. What do you think?

                "computationally complicated" refers to something computational,
                for example the time to compute something with a given algorithm.
                You have made another formulation of your conjecture but not
                described an algorithm so "computationally complicated" is a
                concept which does not apply.

                I don't have time to discuss more.

                --
                Jens Kruse Andersen
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.