> Does Eric Rowland's formula not also=9Ainfer (prove?)=9Athat

Perhaps I do not understand the question, but the primes are trivially *not* arithmetic. They do however contain arithmetic progressions of all lengths, but tat follows from Green and Tao, not Rowland.

> the prime numb= er sequence =0A3,5,7,11 ... is incidentally

> an arithmetic progression, even= though we cannot pinpoint

> precisely what the arithmetic progression is?=0A=