
Re: Musatov Prime Generalization Conjecture
Posted:
Jul 8, 2009 10:30 PM


On Jul 8, 7:27 pm, "I.N.R.I. Logic" <scribe...@aol.com> wrote: > On Jul 8, 7:01 pm, mike <m....@irl.cri.replacethiswithnz> wrote: > > > > > > > In article <88f7a7fc702c47ac8f3e66088faf4487 > > @z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, marty.musa...@gmail.com says... > > > > Here are a list of statements, I would like to know if we can > > > properly > > > decide from 2 N + 1: > > > > (All of the below statements assume P > 2, as you asserted.) > > > > Can we say....? (If every prime > 2 is 2 N + 1 = odd) > > > > 1. 2 N + 1 = P an (odd) prime 1/2 (of an even) 2P? > > > I assume that you trying to state: > > > For all primes P of the form P = 2*N + 1, the number 2*P is even. > > > If so then it is trivially true by definition. > > > > 2. Can we then write for every prime > 2: > > > > 2 N + 1 = P (odd) and 2P (Even), N is also always > > > even? > > > Here you appear to be stating: > > For all P > 2, P = 4*N + 1, for some natural number N. > > > If so then this is trivially false as it doesn't hold true for 7. > > > > 3. Can the above statement equivocally be stated: > > > > 2 (even N) + 1 = Every Prime > 2 = 1/2 2P or 1/2 * 4 (even > > > N) + 2? > > > > 2 * 8 + 1 = 17 (a prime) = 1/2 (17*2) or 1/2 * (4 * 8) + > > > 2 ? > > > This seems teh same as 2 above. If so then it is false. > > > Marty, it may interest you to note that as well as: > > > For all P > 2, P = 2*N + 1 > > > being true, it is also the case that: > > > For all P > 3, P = 6*N +/ 1 > > >  Mike > > This is very interesting. Thanks Mike. So we have all primes > 2 may > be written as 2 N + 1 or 6 N + /  1. Can these equations be combined > to deduce something further? > > Can we write every prime not equal to 3 may be written as 3 N + /  > 1 ? > > Does > 2 (even N) + 1 = Every Prime =/= 7 > 2 = 1/2 2P or 1/2 * 4 > (even N) + 2? > > Or does the single 7 present only an iceberg head in fatally flawed > logic? > > I.N.R.I. Logic (aka, Martin Musatov  for now) Hide quoted text  > >  Show quoted text 
I want you to pay close attention to the logic. I referred to "all primes" meaning "all" not each. Therefore the statement is valid, do you agree?
Though three cannot be written as 6n + or  1 it can be written as 2N +1 so the statement is true.
The statement would be false if I said "each prime" but I did not.

