On Jun 24, 10:39 pm, ab <hobk...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 25, 2:34 pm, Musatov <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 24, 10:17 pm, ab <hobk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 25, 1:36 pm, "MeAmI.org" <Me...@vzw.blackberry.net> wrote: > > > > > REVISION 2 > > > > > Even 'n' only. > > > > > The equation and opeation must be written as follows: > > > > > (N*N)((N*N)+2)-1 > > > > >http://MeAmI.org > > > > "Better Google Search" > > > > > In instance of a composite number it will have at least two prime > > > > factors. > > > > what does this last statement mean? are you asserting the equation is > > > either prime or composite? well of course it is. > > > > or do you mean in the instance of a composite number it will have at > > > least two *unique* primes factors? in other words the equation is > > > anything except the square of a prime? > > > I mean it to say when "n" is even we plug it in the equation... > > > for example > > > ((2*2))((2*2)+2))-1 > > IS > > 4*6-1=23 Prime > > > Now when I say it produces prime number or composites, I am saying it > > produces ALL primes, except when it does not > > it will produce at least two prime factors from the exception > > COMPOSITES. > > unique prime factors? or do you allow a prime repeated, for example > (N*N)((N*N)+2) - 1 = p^2
It's not up to me, I am stating factual discovery. Or at least is is my intent. I cannot see how multiplying to even numbers with a difference of two will allow for a composite square with a identical prime factors.
I am asking. I have not included it in my conjecture because to tell you the truth I simply do not know the answer. Do you? What are the implications either way?