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

Re: Is this true?

Expand Messages
  • Billy Hamathi
    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
    Message 1 of 9 , Sep 2 2:50 AM
      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]
    • Chris Caldwell
      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
      Message 2 of 9 , Sep 2 6:35 AM
        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
      • Billy Hamathi
        Thanks Chris, but could you answer me without answering what my question could imply? Is it true? ... From: Chris Caldwell Subject: RE:
        Message 3 of 9 , Sep 2 6:45 AM
          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]
        • Yann Guidon
          ... Do you have time to elaborate a bit on that ? Though I think that I know what you are talking about, I would like to read your own version, with examples
          Message 4 of 9 , Sep 2 7:38 AM
            Chris Caldwell wrote:
            > 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.

            Do you have time to elaborate a bit on that ?
            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
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.