Re: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Proving Sierpinski conjecture before SoB completes its task
- --- On Mon, 5/19/08, Lélio Ribeiro de Paula <lelio73@...> wrote:
> Jack Brennen wrote:Now reread what Jack wrote (which was also going be in my original post too, but thinking that it was a bit obvious I removed it for brevity), and think a bit more.
> > Indeed, the prime of the form k+2^n might be in the
> covering set for
> > the numbers of the form k*2^n+1.
> No, it cannot.
> The covering sets of all known Riesel and Sierpinski
> numbers are
> exactly the same as that of their duals, as can be easily
> So if a prime for a dual of a Sierpinski number were to be
> in the
> covering set of that particular Sierpinski number, it
> should also be
> in the dual covering set as well, which contradicts the
> definition of
> covering sets.
- Phil Carmody wrote:
>I tried (in private email) giving the example of the dual sequences:
> Now reread what Jack wrote (which was also going be in my original post too, but thinking that it was a bit obvious I removed it for brevity), and think a bit more.
They both have the same covering set (it can be found in under a
minute with just a little thought). One of the sequences has a
very easy to find prime; the other one is easily proven to have no