Re: [PrimeNumbers] Prime Number Generator & Goldbach's Conjecture
I don't believe you understand my generator. I don't think it directly relates to the Wheel Factorization process. I am not sure if mine is a sieve, as I understand a sieve to start with a set of numbers and then sieve out the primes. With my generator, the primes are generated incrementally. However, in a general sense, by selecting only primes to be generated, then I guess one could view it as a sieve, but then again, any prime number generator could be viewed as a sieve and then the meaning of sieve becomes unclear, to me anyway.
What I am working on now is looking at clockwise and counter-clockwise rotations that produce primes on either side of an integer.
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 Thu, 4/14/11, whygee@... <whygee@...> wrote:
From: whygee@... <whygee@...>
Subject: Re: [PrimeNumbers] Prime Number Generator & Goldbach's Conjecture
To: "Bill Krys" <billkrys@...>
Date: Thursday, April 14, 2011, 2:32 AM
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:31:10 -0700 (PDT), Bill Krys
> Prime numbers may be created by:
that sounds like a version or cousin of
(I have not enough brain tonight to dig more).
> 7. Therefore, Goldbach's Conjecture may be restated as, for every
> integer greater than 3, there exists a prime number "x" clock-wise
> rotations and "-x" (i.e. counter-clock-wise rotations) from that
that's one idea and I have suspected for several years
that the prime wheels will help us prove Goldbach.
I am still working on the "low hanging fruit" (n-uplets
such as twin primes) but my approach does not look suited
to Goldbach. I hope you will make progress, as I'm curious
how you will come up with the right proof construction !
> Bill Krys
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]