Re: [PrimeNumbers] New Type of Prime Arithmetic Progression?
- Sindelar wrote:
> > I'm lost here. Seems like a convoluted approach.Andersen wrote:
> You asked for comments on your statement (which is an unprovenJens, I think I may have offended you by writing "I'm lost here. Seems
> guess). I briefly showed that it would follow from a well-known
> and trusted conjecture, sometimes called the prime k-tuple
> (that name is sometimes restricted to special cases). Of course
> 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
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?
> Just to be clear: My "No" was only to your second sentence:(PAP-k, n=0))"
> "I would interpret Green and Tao as covering this type. (meaning
>Jens thank you. Nothing more to explain. You made it clear that the Green
> 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.
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.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:55:00 -0000 "elevensmooth"
> --- In email@example.com, w_sindelar@... wrote:William Lipp wrote:
> > Jens can you explain your answer a bit more?
> 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
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
- Bill Sindelar wrote:
> Jens, I think I may have offended you by writing "I'm lost here. SeemsNo problem. You can search more information about admissible constellations
> like a convoluted approach."
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:
Jens Kruse Andersen
- 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-10I just tested the other PAP-8 from the search and
> difference 210 and count whether there happened to be an equal
> 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
> foundSindelar wrote (Yahoo #19096):
> a (PAP-8, 1) with difference 210:
> 64881326075217862991473794035228920286672784697 +
>>The approach I used required making the following assumption, which isequivalent 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 inarithmetic 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 wrote:
> I used Pari-gp for this. For every set of k consecutive primes, which hasI would expect your method to be much slower based on how
> 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
"randomly" consecutive prime gaps appear to be distributed.
> If one could prove the above assumption, would that also proveNo, and also no to the only-part. Your assumption says nothing
> that all admissible prime constellations have infinitely many occurrences
> as you put it, or only those that have a (PAP-k, n) subset?
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" refers to something computational,
> computationally complicated. What do you think?
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