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

Re: [PrimeNumbers] prime numbers...a new (?) theory

Expand Messages
  • Phil Carmody
    ... 2 isn t. There s another one too, but I ll let you work that one out yourself. ... You think incorrectly. It s a direct consequence of the corrected
    Message 1 of 2 , May 9, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- On Thu, 5/8/08, Paolo Taraboi <olo4all@...> wrote:
      > Is well known that prime numbers can be found with sieve
      > of Eratosthenes
      > and that they are all type 6n+1 or 6n-1.

      2 isn't. There's another one too, but I'll let you work that one out yourself.

      > I do not think that it's already known that prime
      > number are all 6n +-1
      > type numbers excluded those which are the product of two
      > members of the
      > groupincluded each number with itself.

      You think incorrectly. It's a direct consequence of the corrected version of your first sentence.

      Phil


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
      Be a better friend, newshound, and
      know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.