## Re: Is this true?

Expand Messages
• 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]
• 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-----
On Behalf Of Billy Hamathi
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 4:50 AM
Subject: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Is this true?

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

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/

• 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?
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-----
On Behalf Of Billy Hamathi
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 4:50 AM
Subject: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Is this true?

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

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/

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