
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 <NoJunkMail3110971441350001@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)

