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

Re: Tightened-Lightened Goldbach Conjecture

Expand Messages
  • Mark Underwood
    ... Lo and behold it doesn t. Jen noticed that (41,48) yields a negative prime , so is bad. Now, I have to determine if this whole exercise actually caused
    Message 1 of 11 , Nov 9, 2008
      --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Underwood"
      <mark.underwood@...> wrote:
      >
      > But lo and behold it worketh!:
      >
      >
      > (6,1) (7,4) (8,5) (9,2) (10,3) (11,6) (12,7)
      > (13,10) (14,9) (15,8) (16,13) (17,14) (18,11) (19,12)
      > (20,17) (21,16) (22,15) (23,0) (24,19) (25,22) (26,21)
      > (27,20) (28,25) (29,18) (30,23) (31,28) (32,29) (33,26)
      > (34,27) (35,24) (36,31) (37,34) (38,35) (39,32) (40,33)
      > (41,48) (42,37) (43,40) (44,39) (45,38) (46,43) (47,36)
      > (48,41) (49,30) (50,47) (51,46) (52,45) (53,50) (54,49)
      > (55,52) (56,51) (57,44) (58,55) (59,54) (60,53) (61,42)
      >
      >
      > Mark
      >


      Lo and behold it doesn't. Jen noticed that (41,48) yields a negative
      'prime', so is bad. Now, I have to determine if this whole exercise
      actually caused my mental decline, or whether it was a pre existing
      condition.

      Mark
    • Bill Krys
      Mark and Jens,   thanks for trying. I am going to withdraw from the group for a while to tend to work, but I ll come back if I find anything or need more
      Message 2 of 11 , Nov 12, 2008
        Mark and Jens,
         
        thanks for trying. I am going to withdraw from the group for a while to tend to work, but I'll come back if I find anything or need more help. I'll try to see if either a continuous sequence of "N"s works starting from a higher integer and if no luck there, then I'll see if your idea of sequential fragments works, hopefully based on some easily predictable prime gaps because I don't like the idea of a prime gap I can't predict understand.
         
        P.S. Mark, sorry for causing your cognitive dissonance, but that's learnin', ain't it?

        Bill Krys

        This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal, and or privileged information. Please contact the sender immediately if you are not the intended recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take action relying on it. Any communication received in error, or subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed.

        --- On Sun, 11/9/08, Mark Underwood <mark.underwood@...> wrote:

        From: Mark Underwood <mark.underwood@...>
        Subject: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Tightened-Lightened Goldbach Conjecture
        To: primenumbers@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Sunday, November 9, 2008, 2:57 PM






        --- In primenumbers@ yahoogroups. com, "Mark Underwood"
        <mark.underwood@ ...> wrote:
        >
        > But lo and behold it worketh!:
        >
        >
        > (6,1) (7,4) (8,5) (9,2) (10,3) (11,6) (12,7)
        > (13,10) (14,9) (15,8) (16,13) (17,14) (18,11) (19,12)
        > (20,17) (21,16) (22,15) (23,0) (24,19) (25,22) (26,21)
        > (27,20) (28,25) (29,18) (30,23) (31,28) (32,29) (33,26)
        > (34,27) (35,24) (36,31) (37,34) (38,35) (39,32) (40,33)
        > (41,48) (42,37) (43,40) (44,39) (45,38) (46,43) (47,36)
        > (48,41) (49,30) (50,47) (51,46) (52,45) (53,50) (54,49)
        > (55,52) (56,51) (57,44) (58,55) (59,54) (60,53) (61,42)
        >
        >
        > Mark
        >

        Lo and behold it doesn't. Jen noticed that (41,48) yields a negative
        'prime', so is bad. Now, I have to determine if this whole exercise
        actually caused my mental decline, or whether it was a pre existing
        condition.

        Mark















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.