- View Source--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "reijkersz" <vic@...> wrote:
>

I had been thinking of patterns along these lines and tried to post earlier but the formatting was off so I deleted post. Here is a link to my website to explain my thinking on patterns.

> or in other words a way to make a sieve in which every composite number is "crossed out" only once. and no cases occur where for example 45 is crossed out by 3 and by 5. every prime crosses out a number of composite numbers, so that eventually all composite numbers are crossed out, and only crossed out by 1 prime.

>

> is this anything new under the sun? or is it already out there?

>

> i posted the whole story here:

>

> http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/50794-composite-numbers-spread-in-same-way-as-primes/

>

> any feedback from primes enthousiasts is more then welcome!

>

> thank you,

> Vic

>

https://sites.google.com/site/primepatterns/

Tell me what you think. - View SourceHi Yann/stmaddox,

Whats actually going on is that each pattern predicts the next primes up to the pattern slot where the total of pattern numbers is larger then the patterns prime square.

So the 5 and 7 patterns are all primes... but the 11 pattern is the first pattern who's sum (210) is larger then the square of the prime of the pattern (121)

however thats still a substantial number of primes that get predicted.

best regards,

Vic

--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, Yann GUIDON <whygee@...> wrote:

>

> Hi !

>

> >Le ven 23/07/10 08:53 , "Victor Reijkersz" a Ã©crit::

> >> More precisely, it is not finding an "enormous amount of primes", but >of pseudoprimes (candidates for further sieving).

> >Nope... its finding only and all next real primes. seriously. the pattern of 7 as steve writes it is [6,4,2,4,2,4,6,2] or as i write is

> >[4,2,4,2,4,6,2,6]... in my case being

> >7+4=11

> >11+2=13

> <snip>

>

> I'll have to examine this further. I have probably spoken too fast.

>

> >but still... both give enormous insight in the spreading of the primes and composite numbers.

>

> I agree completely here !

>

> >best,

> _o/

>

> >vic

> yg

>