Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Topic: Prime Generalization Conjecture
Replies: 48   Last Post: Nov 7, 2017 5:14 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Constructive Truth Posts: 627 Registered: 7/7/09
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 <88f7a7fc-702c-47ac-8f3e-66088faf4487

>
> > >  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.

Date Subject Author
6/20/09 MeAmI.org
6/20/09 Richard Heathfield
6/20/09 CBFalconer
6/21/09 Richard Heathfield
6/26/09 MeAmI.org
6/26/09 John H. Guillory
6/26/09 Guest
6/26/09 Richard Heathfield
6/27/09 Guest
6/27/09 Guest
6/27/09 Guest
6/29/09 Peter Nilsson
6/30/09 Guest
6/30/09 Alf P. Steinbach
6/30/09 Richard Heathfield
6/30/09 Guest
6/30/09 Dik T. Winter
6/30/09 Richard Heathfield
6/30/09 Guest
6/30/09 Richard Heathfield
6/30/09 mike
6/30/09 Richard Heathfield
6/30/09 Guest
9/13/13
9/13/13
7/7/09 Constructive Truth
7/8/09 Alan Morgan
9/13/13
7/8/09 Guest
7/8/09 Guest
7/8/09 mike
7/8/09 Constructive Truth
7/8/09 Constructive Truth
7/12/09 mike
7/13/09 Guest
7/15/09 Guest
8/24/09 Guest
8/24/09 Guest
6/30/09 Guest
6/30/09 Ed Prochak
11/7/17 4musatov@gmail.com
6/20/09 William Elliot
6/20/09 Guest
6/20/09 Guest
6/20/09 Guest
6/20/09 Guest
6/20/09 Guest
2/8/14
9/13/13