Paul Derbyshire writes:
[deleted]
Since you deleted all the text that you're replying to and your mailer
did not add to the 'References:' header, I cannot even be sure what
you are replying to, but I'll assume you're replying to me since I'm
the only one, as far as I noticed, that said anyth
At 15:26 13-11-98 -0800, you wrote:
>I ran across an interesting statement on the top of a math paper that I
>was helping my sister with. It said that every even number greater than 4
>is the sum of two primes. I am curious if this has been proven and if
>anyone knows where I could find more inf
At 09:59 AM 11/14/98 -0500, you wrote:
>At 11:16 AM 11/14/98 -, Thomas Womack wrote:
>[snip]
>>I've ran a test for N<2^26, which took a night on a P2/233, and produced the
>>data graphed in http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mert0236/maths/goldbach.gif and
>>http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mert0236/maths/goldbach[
On Fri, Nov 13, 1998 at 09:23:11PM -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
> it made the SJ Mercury today who DOES put their articles on the web for at
> least a week. http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/front/docs/prime13.htm
An article also made the front page of Michigan Tech's weekly campus
newspaper,
Oh...oops... found that each of goldback1.gif, 2.gif, 3.gif, and 4.gif
work... just not goldback[2..4].gif... still, urls like these should be
exact and not formulas, orpeople will get a lot of 404s clicking on them.
--
.*. "Clouds are not spheres, mountains are not cones, coastlines are not
At 07:51 PM 11/13/98 -0800, William Stuart wrote:
>Another interesting thing about this conjecture...
>
>If it is correct, then there is no last prime.
There's no last prime anyways. This is Euclid's Theorem and was proven
thousands of years ago, as follows:
Let p1, p2, ... , pn be a finite coll
At 07:51 PM 11/13/98 -0800, William Stuart wrote:
>Another interesting thing about this conjecture...
>
>If it is correct, then there is no last prime.
>
And if Goldbach's conjecture is incorrect - then there is no last prime!
+--+
| Jud Mc
At 11:16 AM 11/14/98 -, Thomas Womack wrote:
[snip]
>I've ran a test for N<2^26, which took a night on a P2/233, and produced the
>data graphed in http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mert0236/maths/goldbach.gif and
>http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mert0236/maths/goldbach[2..4].gif. What I'm plotting
>there is the p
On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, William Stuart wrote:
> Another interesting thing about this conjecture...
> If it is correct, then there is no last prime.
That is a bit dangerous statement... because the proof that there are
infinite primes exist, and is quite separate from this conjecture.
Naturally, thou
First of all, I stand corrected on my comment about uniqueness in the
conjecture. I remember there was something like that, maybe it was that there
are always at least two DISTINCT primes for n where n>4 and n is even. So
although 10 is 5 and 5, it can also be arrived at with two distinct primes,
Shaun writes:
> I think Mr. Derbyshire is trying to prove that he is neither
> of the adjectives in his tagline.
"smooth" and "straight" are the only adjectives I can see.
> For myself, I would rather be silent and thought a fool,
> than to open my mouth and remove all doubt.
Ah, this is more fun than complaints about network administration ...
Goldbach's Conjecture states that every even number greater than 4 is the sum
of two primes. It hasn't been proved yet; the closest we've got is a result by
Chen using sieve theory which shows that every sufficiently large even
I think Mr. Derbyshire is trying to prove that he is neither
of the adjectives in his tagline.
I was having a lot of fun reading this list. I don't look
forward to the day when it isn't any fun anymore.
For myself, I would rather be silent and tho
On Sat 14 Nov, Jon Edwards wrote:
> Ok, let's see.
>
> 3x2=6
> But what about 8? It's factors are 1 and 8 and 2 and 4. That doesn't work
> too well.
>
> Jon
>
> >I ran across an interesting statement on the top of a math paper that I
> >was helping my sister with. It said that every even num
> Well, you get the idea. Another interesting thing to note which is part of
> the theorem is that it can only be done in one way, and exactly one way. So
> what ever the two primes are that add to 250... 163 and 87, no
> other pair of primes will add to 250 according to the theorem.
No, that's
>But what about 8? It's factors are 1 and 8 and 2 and 4. That doesn't work
>too well.
8 = 3 + 5 : 3 is prime 5 is prime. Q. E. D.
other examples:
4 = 2 + 2
6 = 3 + 3
8 = 5 + 3
10 = 5 + 5 = 3 + 7
etc . . .
I believe what we are talking about here is Goldbach's Conjecture. To date
(to my kn
>Just thought everyone might like to know that the Baltimore Sunday Sun ran a
>full page (almost) article on GIMPS in their 'A' section (Page 2) on
>11/08/98
>
>It was credited to a Sun Writer and therefore I don't think it was a
>syndicated piece. Unfortunately however they did not see fit to ar
there is no last prime anyway... :)
On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, William Stuart wrote:
> Another interesting thing about this conjecture...
>
> If it is correct, then there is no last prime.
>
> ---
> William Stuart ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> "Don't rush me sonny. You rush a miracle man you get rotten mi
sum not product.
2+2=4
3+3=6
5+3=8
etc..
---
William Stuart ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
"Don't rush me sonny. You rush a miracle man you get rotten miracles."
--Miracle Max, "The Princess Bride"
On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Jon Edwards wrote:
> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:56:51 -0800
> Fro
19 matches
Mail list logo
