|
|
Re: Goldbach conjecture
Posted:
Nov 3, 1997 1:32 AM
|
|
In article <EJ1n3C.KEq@syd.csa.com.au>, warwickp@syd.csa.com.au wrote:
=> In article <NoJunkMail-3110971441350001@abinitio.mpce.mq.edu.au>,
NoJunkMail@this.address (Gerry Myerson) writes:
=> > In article <3458CA74.900@math.okstate.edu>, David Ullrich
=> > <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote:
=> >
=> > > Gerry Myerson wrote:
=> > > >
=> > > > ...it has been obvious for a century or two that the Goldbach
=> > > > Conjecture is true.
=> > >
=> > > Really? Could you explain why this is obvious?
=> >
=> > Well, there are so damn many primes.
=>
=> There are "so damn many" squares also,
No, there aren't anywhere near as many squares as there are primes.
Up to 10: 3 squares, 4 primes.
Up to 100: 10 squares, 25 primes.
Up to 1000: 31 squares, 168 primes.
Up to 10000: 100 squares, 1229 primes.
And it just keeps getting worse.
Gerry Myerson (gerry@mpce.mq.edu.au)
|
|
