Peter Percival <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in news:ku8479$dfb$1 @news.albasani.net:
>>> Generally 3 will not be larger than p and q. If _any_ prime were >>> needed, the answer is just "yes: return 3"! >> >> You don't have to use 3. Read Dickson. >> > Um yes, given > > <something> = 1 > > one can multiply by any prime r and get > > <something else> = r > > but the OP wants a prime r bigger than p and q, so the problem is to > find such an r. Once that problem is solved the relation ap+bq=1 is > irrelevant; and, as has been remarked elsewhere in the thread, given any > primes p and q, there is a primitive recursive procedure to find a > suitable r.
My comment wasn't in response to the OP, but to the blithering idiot who said (without proof) that there was no possible way to combine two primes to get a third. I offer proof. He offers scheisse.