Bacle
Posts:
818
From:
NYC
Registered:
6/21/09


Re: Conjecture Prime
Posted:
Jun 25, 2009 11:35 AM


> > On Jun 25, 8:53 am, "Dik T. Winter" > > <Dik.Win...@cwi.nl> wrote: > > > In article > > > <d0f06d1808444c109f84d20bfd704...@z20g2000prh.goog > > > legroups.com> Musatov <marty.musa...@gmail.com> > > writes: > > > > On Jun 24, 10:39 pm, ab <hobk...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > > > The equation and opeation must be > > written as follows: > > > > > > > > (N*N)((N*N)+2)1 > > > ... > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Do you? > > > > > > N = 46, (N*N)(N*N+2)1 = 4481687 = 7 * 7 * 91463 > > > > Indeed. Just apply Hensel's lemma to a solution > mod > > 7. It will > > also have solutions mod 7^3, 7^4, ........ > > > > Note also that n^4 +2n^21 will be divisible by > 7^2 > > for n = 46 + > > 49k > > for all integer k. Note the solution at n = 3. > > It also has > > solutions at > > 3 + 49k for all integer k...... (note that the > > function is even) > > > > musatov thinks he is to cool for all of us, and > nd does > not need to explain himself clearly: we are the > e serfs > that attend to the needs of the genius he believes > himself to be. So he feels no need to clearly state > a problem, or he is to ignorant to be able to really > y > understand what he wants and what he's after, other > than attention.
A sample posting of his includes statements like: > > er...<$#..>&(2NN*1) > > After a reply, musatov says, e.g: > > Of course I mean by $# that you need to first > multiply by 2.
Once explained , after several exchanges, the conjectures can be very easily tested with a hand calculator or a simple program. But that is beneath musatov, since he believes himself to be above that work.
> > Yet another buffoon, with his sorry P=NP, > NP, trashing > this site.
musatov: you're just another loser.

