Why of prime gaps
in [Math]
|
Prev: JSH: a top polluter of sci math
Next: more symmetry yet? Re: the *ultimate equivalent* Riemann Hypothesis statement? #695 Correcting Math
From: HAL on 18 Jul 2010 01:47 "JSH" <jstevh(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:61df37fe-69ed-46c8-857e-f2401db02437(a)u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > Recently an idea I had Already wrong, you blithering fuckwit.
From: Amy on 18 Jul 2010 02:29
"JSH" <jstevh(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:61df37fe-69ed-46c8-857e-f2401db02437(a)u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > Recently an idea I had several years ago about prime numbers seemed to > me to be actually an axiom about prime numbers themselves, which was > rather exciting and I suggest that it is surprising that the world has > either yawned or is not aware of how significant it is, a new personal surprise for you, we have already been through it long ago. > but it among > other things quite simply explains the why of prime gaps. In this > post I'll quickly show how that is the case by focusing on the twin > primes. simple division with no remainder is the key, yet that is an integral part of the definition of PRIME. Prime gaps are simply spaced by multiples of factors, AS EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS wiki Seive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes > > An example of twin primes is: 11, 13 why not use 1, 3 ? The gap between them is exactly 2, but 2 is prime. So you are wrong again, but dont give up, we are here to help you. > The gap between them is exactly 2, and one way of looking at "why" is > to note that if for any odd prime p less than sqrt(11), if (11+2) mod > p is 0, then the prime gap can't occur. May seem trivial but it is > the key to understanding the twin prime gap. too trivial, you add 2 and if that is prime, then you have twin prime, trivial > > For instance look at 13, where the next prime is 17. That's because > (13+2) mod 3 = 0. try reading; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes > > That's it. It's the only reason. Mathematically THERE IS NO OTHER. Wrong. Your method fails from the get go, it cannot handle 1, 3 <snip failed examples> > Mathematics doesn't need anything else to say a prime gap is there! > There is ONLY one way to get a prime gap, which is for > > (p_1 + g) mod p_2 > > to NOT be 0 for any odd primes less than sqrt(p_1). If it is, then > that gap does NOT occur. trivial, <snip> Ok that is enough, Nice try, but you are mearly stating the obvious 9in math terms for once), there is no real math here. And wishing it to infinity, is not a proof. Spoof yes, proof no. > > James Harris |