Wm Saith William Tanksley, Jr <[email protected]>: >>something that other posters have explained in the past
>Indeed i was one of those who said, in this thread, that. So i am in complete >concurrence on this. To answer, constructively, Alan's post i made the new >hypothesis which was perhaps more sensible given the clear typos in the text. Saith William Tanksley, Jr <[email protected]>: >>2 is not equal to (3+5)%2 >Indeed, but it is equal to (3+5)%4, as my hypothesis asks of it. Saith William Tanksley, Jr <[email protected]>: >> 2,3 is "a pair of primes" >Not in the sense i used, and i think is commonly used, where the pairs are >separated by two. There are as many adjacent primes as there are primes. So to >make prime pairs meaningful, one has to put a restriction on them. Saith William Tanksley, Jr <[email protected]>: >>I got the impression that everyone here was talking about the average of two >>primes, not half of the average. >Exactly i interpreted a NEW hypothesis from an obviously typo 'd one. That was >the original motivation. Alan stated that he would like to see algorithmic >explorations for his hypothesis ... which was clearly typo 'd. So i made one: >a correctly stated related hypothesis and an algorithmic exploration. >Certainly my hypothesis holds for all reasonably computable primes. i would be >curious if it holds also generally. greg ~krsnadas.org -- from: William Tanksley, Jr <[email protected]> to: [email protected] date: 14 May 2013 07:37 subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Testing consecutive pairs of primes greg heil <[email protected]> wrote: > 2.5 is not even an integer, how could it be a prime? >The confusion for me is probably the same as for Raul. You are making >statements like "the hypothesis is true for all numbers tested except 2 and >3." This is confusing to both Raul and myself, because the statement of the >hypothesis we're thinking of is false by definition (something that other >posters have explained in the past); you are obviously thinking of some other >hypothesis that somehow isn't false. >The hypothesis we're considering is the claim that there exists a prime number >that is equal to the average of the primes in a paired prime. The hypothesis >that you're considering is something I'd never seen before -- you stated it >below. >>In your quote i said that 2 and 3 were the only solutions (note the plural) >>up to 1e8, of hpp. 2 is the solution for the prime pair (pp) 3 5, while 3 is >>for 5 7. >2 is not equal to (3+5)%2, nor is 3 equal to (5+7)%2. So those are not >solutions according to the original statement. I don't know what they're >solutions to -- I suspect they're the result of a bug. >The first paired primes are 3,5, and their average is 4. 2,3 is "a pair of >primes", and the only adjacent primes; their average is 2.5. >>Maybe i will be very happy to know of my stupidity for not seeing a yeoman's >>proof that my hypothesis were true (that there are no r -: 4%~p+q where p, q, >>and r are primes and p q is a prime pair) except for the trivial pairs of 3 5 >>and 5 7. >Well... I for one am deeply surprised to see the '4' there. I'll be glad to >feel stupid if you'll point out where that '4' was explained... I got the >impression that everyone here was talking about the average of two primes, not >half of the average. >I'll try to think about your question, which certainly has the advantage of >not being obviously false, unlike the question Raul and I thought you were >asking. In the meantime, could you discuss your actual question a little more >-- what motivated it? -Wm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
