
Re: Musatov Prime Generalization Conjecture
Posted:
Jun 30, 2009 8:06 AM


In article <115c718cfe664a34ac7c02b57c508d71@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> Musatov <marty.musatov@gmail.com> writes: ... When are you going to stop to post these mindless conjectures based on a very small number of cases?
> Consider each case: > > For four: (#4) > > 2*4+1=9 not prime > 2*14+1=29 prime > 2*24+1=49 not prime > > In the above instances "N" ends in "4" and is not prime, the formula > produces a number with square prime factors (i.e. 3*3=9 and 7*7=49). > (i.e. When it does not produce a prime the composite is a prime > squared).
Wrong. 2*34+1 = 69 = 3*23. 2*544+1 = 1089 = 3*3*11*11 2*364+1 = 729 = 3*3*3*3*3*3
> Also, we note: > > When "N" ends in "4" and the formula produces a composite number, > adding "two" to the composite produces a prime. > > Shown: > 2*4+1=9+2=11 prime > 2*24+1=49+2=51 prime
Since when is 51 prime?  dik t. winter, cwi, science park 123, 1098 xg amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

