Thread: A (new) prime theorem. View Single Post
2006-10-24, 10:56   #43
troels munkner

May 2006

29 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mfgoode The only reason I can presume to explain this is that 1 is not considered a prime. It is its own square and this property is unique. Since 2 is considered the only even prime it 'may' also be dropped out of the 'real' prime sequence. Now Goldbach's conjecture is that every even number greater the two (2=1+1) is the sum of 2 prime numbers. So two is not, by definition above of 1, not being a prime and Goldbach makes 2 an exception to his rule.. Is that what you mean Troels? But why do you consider 3 as not a prime number? Have you a logical reason? Mally

Dear Malcolm,
You have kindly submitted three replies with reference to my thread
"A (new) Prime Theorem".
Please recall my definition of "possible primes" [(6*M)+1], M being any
integer from - infinity to + infinity, zero included. M can simply be called
an integer factor (negative, zero or positive).
Let me give you an example with M = - 10 and M = + 10.
The two possible primes will be - 59 and 61 (by modulation V and VII).
The integer [(6*M)+1] will never be divisible by 2 or 3.

All "possible primes" have modules I,IV,VII or V,II,VIII.
All odd integers divisible by 3 have modules = I,III or VI.

I think that you will understand my proposal for a replacement
of the generally accepted (antique) definition of primes.
It is a pity, that many mathematicians don't understand this new idea.

As a consequence of my change of terminology any discussion of
"twin primes" will be of no avail. At the same time Goldbach's conjecture
will be rejected, as it will be incorrect for the sums 4,6,8,10.

Y.s.

Troels Munkner