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

Re: [PrimeNumbers] Twin Prime Puzzle

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.