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

Twin Prime Puzzle

Expand Messages
  • Bob Gilson
    I noticed that the sequence of even numbers 30,,60,90,120,150,180 ... has some strange properties. 30 has two partitions 13:17 and 11:19, which gives the Twin
    Message 1 of 12 , Aug 30, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I noticed that the sequence of even numbers 30,,60,90,120,150,180 ... has some strange properties.

      30 has two partitions 13:17 and 11:19, which gives the Twin Primes 11,13 and 17,19
      60 has two partitions 17:43 and 19:41, which gives the Twin Primes 17,19 and 41,43

      Similarly for 90, 120, 150, 180.

      I presume that this pattern must break down at some point - could someone tell me where?

      Thank you

      Bob
    • djbroadhurst
      ... http://shakespeare.mit.edu/lear/lear.5.3.html Never, never, never, never, never! David (who does not have reliable record using this quote)
      Message 2 of 12 , Aug 30, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, Bob Gilson <bobgillson@...> wrote:
        >
        > I noticed that the sequence of even numbers 30,,60,90,120,150,180 ... has some strange properties.
        >
        > 30 has two partitions 13:17 and 11:19, which gives the Twin Primes 11,13 and 17,19
        > 60 has two partitions 17:43 and 19:41, which gives the Twin Primes 17,19 and 41,43
        >
        > Similarly for 90, 120, 150, 180.
        >
        > I presume that this pattern must break down at some point - could someone tell me where?

        http://shakespeare.mit.edu/lear/lear.5.3.html
        Never, never, never, never, never!

        David (who does not have reliable record using this quote)
      • yasep16
        ... If this is the case then isn t this a proof of the twin primes conjecture ? Just asking...
        Message 3 of 12 , Aug 30, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Le 2013-08-31 01:06, djbroadhurst a écrit :
          > --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, Bob Gilson <bobgillson@...>
          > wrote:
          >>
          >> I noticed that the sequence of even numbers 30,,60,90,120,150,180
          >> ... has some strange properties.
          >>
          >> 30 has two partitions 13:17 and 11:19, which gives the Twin Primes
          >> 11,13 and 17,19
          >> 60 has two partitions 17:43 and 19:41, which gives the Twin Primes
          >> 17,19 and 41,43
          >>
          >> Similarly for 90, 120, 150, 180.
          >>
          >> I presume that this pattern must break down at some point - could
          >> someone tell me where?
          >
          > http://shakespeare.mit.edu/lear/lear.5.3.html
          > Never, never, never, never, never!
          >
          > David (who does not have reliable record using this quote)

          If this is the case then isn't this a proof of the twin primes
          conjecture ?

          Just asking...
        • Jens Kruse Andersen
          ... David is almost certainly right here. Twin primes aren t that rare. See Harvey Dubner s Twin Prime Conjectures : http://oeis.org/A007534/a007534.pdf See
          Message 4 of 12 , Aug 30, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Bob Gilson wrote:
            > I presume that this pattern must break down at some point - could
            > someone tell me where?

            David is almost certainly right here. Twin primes aren't that rare.
            See Harvey Dubner's "Twin Prime Conjectures":
            http://oeis.org/A007534/a007534.pdf
            See also http://oeis.org/A007534
            http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/primenumbers/conversations/topics/16384
            and http://oeis.org/A179825 which probably only has those 11 terms.
            None of them are multiples of 30 (that's no coincidence; small factors
            improve the odds).
            But the keyword "fini" (a finite sequence) seems inappropriate
            when it's only a conjecture. If conjectured keywords are
            acceptable then you might as well go full out and say "full" (the full
            sequence is given).
            http://oeis.org/A007534 also claims "fini" and then says
            "Conjectured to be complete" in the extensions field.

            --
            Jens Kruse Andersen
          • Bob Gilson
            I can give you the beginning of the full sequence. It is
            Message 5 of 12 , Aug 30, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              I can give you the beginning of the full sequence.

              It is 10,16,18,22,24,30,34,36,42,46,48,54,60,64,66,72,76,78,84,90,102,106,108,112,114,120,126,132,138,142,144,150,156,158,168,180,198,210,240,246 . . .

              That is as far as paper and pencil takes me, and I might have made some typo errors.

              Incidentally, I have not laid claim to any proof of anything whatsoever.

              I just wanted to know how far primorial 30 extends into this realm.

              Kind regards

              Bob


              On 31 Aug 2013, at 01:06, "Jens Kruse Andersen" <jens.k.a@...> wrote:

              > Bob Gilson wrote:
              > > I presume that this pattern must break down at some point - could
              > > someone tell me where?
              >
              > David is almost certainly right here. Twin primes aren't that rare.
              > See Harvey Dubner's "Twin Prime Conjectures":
              > http://oeis.org/A007534/a007534.pdf
              > See also http://oeis.org/A007534
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/primenumbers/conversations/topics/16384
              > and http://oeis.org/A179825 which probably only has those 11 terms.
              > None of them are multiples of 30 (that's no coincidence; small factors
              > improve the odds).
              > But the keyword "fini" (a finite sequence) seems inappropriate
              > when it's only a conjecture. If conjectured keywords are
              > acceptable then you might as well go full out and say "full" (the full
              > sequence is given).
              > http://oeis.org/A007534 also claims "fini" and then says
              > "Conjectured to be complete" in the extensions field.
              >
              > --
              > Jens Kruse Andersen
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • djbroadhurst
              ... No. The twin prime conjecture is based on the heuristic that n increases faster than log(n)^2. The present conjecture is based on the heuristic that n
              Message 6 of 12 , Aug 30, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, whygee@... wrote:

                > If this is the case then isn't this a proof of the twin primes
                > conjecture ?

                No. The twin prime conjecture is based on the heuristic
                that n increases faster than log(n)^2.

                The present conjecture is based on the heuristic
                that n increases faster than log(n)^4.

                You can keep on going, piling on extra conditions.
                In general, every constellation that is not forbidden
                is expected to occur an infinite number of times.

                David
              • warren_d_smith31
                 Wow!  The home pages of the groups just got incredibly ugly and dysfunctional in a complete appearance and function change which made it way worse
                Message 7 of 12 , Aug 31, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                   Wow!  The home pages of the groups just got incredibly ugly and dysfunctional in a complete appearance and function change which made it way worse and also deleted the "pictures" (a big picture of the number 2, in the case of primenumbers). Plus there are now giant ads obscuring most of the screen. Is yahoo intentionally trying to make everybody go away? --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, <david.broadhurst@...> wrote: --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com , whygee@... wrote:

                  > If this is the case then isn't this a proof of the twin primes
                  > conjecture ?

                  No. The twin prime conjecture is based on the heuristic
                  that n increases faster than log(n)^2.

                  The present conjecture is based on the heuristic
                  that n increases faster than log(n)^4.

                  You can keep on going, piling on extra conditions.
                  In general, every constellation that is not forbidden
                  is expected to occur an infinite number of times.

                  David
                • djbroadhurst
                  ... I jump straight to http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/primenumbers/messages which seems for the time being to be ad-free. David
                  Message 8 of 12 , Sep 1, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, <warren.wds@...> wrote:

                    >  Wow!  The home pages of the groups just got incredibly ugly and dysfunctional

                    I jump straight to
                    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/primenumbers/messages
                    which seems for the time being to be ad-free.

                    David
                  • mistermac39
                     In case I never am able to contact you chaps again, because of Yahoo (Boohoo), it has been a pleasure to know you all.  
                    Message 9 of 12 , Sep 1, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                       In case I never am able to contact you chaps again, because of Yahoo (Boohoo), it has been a pleasure to know you all.  
                      --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, <david.broadhurst@...> wrote:
                      --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com , <warren.wds@...> wrote: >  Wow!  The home pages of the groups just got incredibly ugly and dysfunctional I jump straight to http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/primenumbers/messages which seems for the time being to be ad-free. David
                    • mistermac39
                       I tried David's workaround, but the bastewards change the "groups" to "neo/groups". I am furious about this! ...  In case I
                      Message 10 of 12 , Sep 1, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                         I tried David's workaround, but the bastewards change the "groups" to "neo/groups". I am furious about this!
                        --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, <mistermac39@...> wrote:
                         In case I never am able to contact you chaps again, because of Yahoo (Boohoo), it has been a pleasure to know you all.   --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com , <david.broadhurst@...> wrote: --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com , <warren.wds@...> wrote: >  Wow!  The home pages of the groups just got incredibly ugly and dysfunctional I jump straight to http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/primenumbers/messages which seems for the time being to be ad-free. David
                      • djbroadhurst
                        ... Try starting at http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/ It seems to be a US/UK thing at present. But no doubt they will make this pond-side suffer like you, real soon.
                        Message 11 of 12 , Sep 1, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, <mistermac39@...> wrote:

                          >  I tried David's workaround, but the bastewards
                          > change the "groups" to "neo/groups".
                          > I am furious about this!

                          Try starting at

                          http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/

                          It seems to be a US/UK thing at present.
                          But no doubt they will make this pond-side
                          suffer like you, real soon.

                          http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26251.html

                          David
                        • djbroadhurst
                          ... I looked to see if managers can keep their groups classic . Seems not: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/GroupManagersForum/message/43342 et seqq. David
                          Message 12 of 12 , Sep 1, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "djbroadhurst" <david.broadhurst@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, <mistermac39@> wrote:
                            >
                            > >  I tried David's workaround, but the bastewards
                            > > change the "groups" to "neo/groups".
                            > > I am furious about this!
                            >
                            > Try starting at
                            >
                            > http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/

                            I looked to see if managers can keep their groups "classic". Seems not:
                            http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/GroupManagersForum/message/43342
                            et seqq.

                            David
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.