On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 12:00:35 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 3:20:34 PM UTC-5, red...@siu.edu wrote: > > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 2:23:39 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > (snipped) > > > > Okay, here's my randomly selected even number: 10^100 + 100368. > > > > Don > > As I said before, the behaviour of numbers in conjectures and proving conjectures does not require the attention of large numbers. My proof of Goldbach is not a rift, or schism of having proved Goldbach for small numbers and then having to have to prove for numbers only a computer can tackle. > > I suppose Don would want two proofs of Pythagorean theorem, one for numbers below 10^10 and one for numbers with exponents of 100 or larger. Don, why do you have this craving fascination for large numbers? > > Make yourself useful, Don, by telling me where the primes needs to have 23 in the staircase? Since 122 is where the primes need to include 11, 13, 17, 19 in the staircase, where do primes need 23? > > Looking at all the primes from 0 to 1000, I do not see a larger gap than from 113 to 127, a gap of 14 units. Is there a larger gap before 1000? And when do we need 23? The number 863 and 877 is another gap of 14 units where 860 is satisfied by 3+857, 862 by 5+857, 864 by 7+857, 866 by 3+863, etc etc. > > So where is 23 needed in the staircase Don? > > AP
But I don't need to worry about the size of the numbers. I (or Euclid before me) could prove the general formula for Pythagorean triples without referring to the size of the numbers at all.
You have only shown your proofs work for small numbers and then conjectured that they always work. If you really have a proof, then you should have a means to settle any case anyone puts before and not just answer that the proof follows in the same way.