- Point (1): There is a pattern in compound numbers. This implies that compound numbers have a function.

Point (2): There is a relationship between compound numbers and squares of primes. This implies that squares of primes have a function dependent on the function of compounds.

Point (3): The pattern in prime numbers is related to "Point 2". This implies that prime numbers have a function.

Regards. - Why do I make very silly mistakes even when I am serious, the question should read:

Point (1): There is a pattern in composite numbers. This implies that composite numbers have a function.

Point (2): There is a relationship between composite numbers and squares of primes. This implies that squares of primes have a function dependent on the function of composites.

Point (3): The pattern in prime numbers is related to "Point 2". This implies that prime numbers have a function.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] - I am not sure what your point is, but it seems to center on the Urban

myths that there are no functions which describe the primes. There are

many (none particularly useful, but dozens have been published). For

subsets of the primes, my favorite is Mills'

The primes are a pattern.

-----Original Message-----

From: primenumbers@yahoogroups.com [mailto:primenumbers@yahoogroups.com]

On Behalf Of Billy Hamathi

Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 4:50 AM

To: primenumbers@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Is this true?

Why do I make very silly mistakes even when I am serious, the question

should read:

Point (1): There is a pattern in composite numbers. This implies that

composite numbers have a function.

Point (2): There is a relationship between composite numbers and squares

of primes. This implies that squares of primes have a function dependent

on the function of composites.

Point (3): The pattern in prime numbers is related to "Point 2". This

implies that prime numbers have a function.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

Unsubscribe by an email to: primenumbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

The Prime Pages : http://www.primepages.org/

Yahoo! Groups Links - Thanks Chris, but could you answer me without answering what my question could imply? Is it true?

--- On Wed, 2/9/09, Chris Caldwell <caldwell@...> wrote:

From: Chris Caldwell <caldwell@...>

Subject: RE: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Is this true?

To: primenumbers@yahoogroups.com

Date: Wednesday, 2 September, 2009, 4:35 PM

I am not sure what your point is, but it seems to center on the Urban

myths that there are no functions which describe the primes. There are

many (none particularly useful, but dozens have been published). For

subsets of the primes, my favorite is Mills'

The primes are a pattern.

-----Original Message-----

From: primenumbers@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:primenumbers@ yahoogroups. com]

On Behalf Of Billy Hamathi

Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 4:50 AM

To: primenumbers@ yahoogroups. com

Subject: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Is this true?

Why do I make very silly mistakes even when I am serious, the question

should read:

Point (1): There is a pattern in composite numbers. This implies that

composite numbers have a function.

Point (2): There is a relationship between composite numbers and squares

of primes. This implies that squares of primes have a function dependent

on the function of composites.

Point (3): The pattern in prime numbers is related to "Point 2". This

implies that prime numbers have a function.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------ --------- --------- ------

Unsubscribe by an email to: primenumbers- unsubscribe@ yahoogroups. com

The Prime Pages : http://www.primepag es.org/

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] - Chris Caldwell wrote:
> I am not sure what your point is, but it seems to center on the Urban

Do you have time to elaborate a bit on that ?

> myths that there are no functions which describe the primes. There are

> many (none particularly useful, but dozens have been published). For

> subsets of the primes, my favorite is Mills'

>

> The primes are a pattern.

Though I think that I know what you are talking

about, I would like to read your own version,

with examples etc.

Best regards,

yg