On May 25, 6:57 pm, rich...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote: > In article <c948ab01-3de4-4753-8182-c53b2531e...@kt20g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, > Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> The result says there are an infinite number of consecutive > >> primes p(n) and p(n+1), such that p(n+1) - p(n) < 70,000,000. > >> Two primes are "consecutive" when there are no primes in between > >> those primes. > >No it doesn't. We just proved an arbitrary size succession > >of composites 10 posts ago! > > You have misunderstood. The two statements are not contradictory. > > -- Richard
OK, but that has more ambiguous wording than Anastasia.
n is SOME IDENTIFIER INDEX out of nowhere...
Not true for all n.
Would read better as p_a and p_b or p_a(n) and p_b(n)
by merely moving 'such that' a little
The result says there are an infinite number of consecutive primes such that p(n) and p(n+1) have p(n+1) - p(n) < 70,000,000.
Worse than 'as many as you want'
If someone asks for a ACCURATE NEWSPAPER SUBJECT LINE
then don't feed them bullshit
then repeatedly misconstrue the objections to why it is incorrect.
You MATHNOS have been LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH for 10 YEARS