
Re: Musatov Prime Generalization Conjecture
Posted:
Jul 7, 2009 11:35 PM


On Jun 30, 5:06 am, "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Win...@cwi.nl> wrote: > In article <115c718cfe664a34ac7c02b57c508...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> Musatov <marty.musa...@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)
Dear Mr. Dik T. Winter:
I am afraid, necessarily you misunderstand the direct language of my claim.
My claim is:
1. every prime is of the form 2N+1.
My claim is:
2. Not every number of the form 2N+1 is prime.
They are two very different things, but may be stated directly with the statement I made earlier.
"Every prime number is of the form 2N+1"
Do you understand?

Martin Musatov
Venn Diagram/Concentric circle inclusions/statements may help me clarify. _____________________ [ All Numbers of the ] [ {Prime Numbers} ] [ form 2N+1 ] 
1. All prime numbers are of the form 2N+1 2. Not all numbers of the form 2N+1 are prime.
> > 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/

