From: Archimedes Plutonium on


Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)

> But that is sufficient to prove the infinitude of Quad primes and all
> primes of form N + 2k
> for k>1. I say this because to have only Regular Primes infinite and N
> +2 primes infinite
> but to have N+4, N+6, etc etc as all finite sets of primes is a
> contradiction. Whether a contradiction of the Prime distribution
> theorem or some other distribution of primes theorem
> I am not quite sure as yet.
>
> What I suspect is that given the information that Twin Primes is an
> infinite set, makes the
> proposition that all N+2k, k>1 sets of primes must also be infinite.
>

I guess noone thought that if you prove the Infinitude of Twin Primes,
that it
was much of use for anything. That it was a one item proof that had no
value
elsewhere. That nothing else hinged on whether Twin Primes were
infinite or finite.

But I suspect that a proof of Infinitude of Twin Primes is the access
door to proving
the infinitude of N+2k, k>1 sets of Primes, such as the Quad Primes.

So all I have to do is find a theorem in math that I can contradict
that theorem when
the input is that Regular primes are infinite and Twin primes are
infinite and unless
all primes of form N+2k, k>1 are infinite that such and such a theorem
is contradicted.

I hope that is not the Riemann Hypothesis.

I was thinking of something much smaller of a theorem such as the
theorem that
between N and 2N must always exist at least one prime number.

So that if Regular Primes are infinite and Twin Primes are infinite,
then N+4, N+6,
N+8, N+10, etc etc must all be infinite sets also, or else we
contradict a theorem.

Mathematics is not asymmetrical like this. Where you have Twin primes
as infinite
yet the others finite. That makes little sense.


Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies