I am not sure what your point is, but it seems to center on the Urban

myths that there are no functions which describe the primes. There are

many (none particularly useful, but dozens have been published). For

subsets of the primes, my favorite is Mills'

The primes are a pattern.

-----Original Message-----

From:

primenumbers@yahoogroups.com [mailto:

primenumbers@yahoogroups.com]

On Behalf Of Billy Hamathi

Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 4:50 AM

To:

primenumbers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Is this true?

Why do I make very silly mistakes even when I am serious, the question

should read:

Point (1): There is a pattern in composite numbers. This implies that

composite numbers have a function.

Point (2): There is a relationship between composite numbers and squares

of primes. This implies that squares of primes have a function dependent

on the function of composites.

Point (3): The pattern in prime numbers is related to "Point 2". This

implies that prime numbers have a function.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

Unsubscribe by an email to:

primenumbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
The Prime Pages :

http://www.primepages.org/
Yahoo! Groups Links