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

Re: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Twin Prime Puzzle

Expand Messages
  • yasep16
    ... If this is the case then isn t this a proof of the twin primes conjecture ? Just asking...
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.