20220923, 21:06  #100  
Jul 2014
2^{3}×7 Posts 
Quote:
Please read my paper (and try to understand it) and/or look at my video on it. The structure of the data, based on their primorial generating forms, establish all the residue gap values, from 2 to any n, only increase in frequency with increasing Pm# generators. Thus, there is no mathematical possibility for the gaps between primes to ever decrease, let alone ever become zero (0) at some unknown point way up the number line, for any gap size n. It is structurally impossible for there to be a last prime pair for any gap size n. As I said, the obvious is so hard to get people to accept. :( 

20220923, 22:45  #101 
Jan 2021
California
3·7·23 Posts 

20220924, 11:28  #102  
Dec 2008
you know...around...
2^{6}×13 Posts 
I'm really happy to get a reply, so I've attached the data for p>=43.
Strange... I thought I read the word "Pari" in one of your posts, so I thought you were already using this program. Quote:
There are also a lot of selfproclaimed proofs for the Riemann Hypothesis (I've even seen one recently on arXiv). Most of them have been confirmed wrong, and the remaining have not been confirmed correct yet. If it's any consolation, a lot of things seem "obvious" from the numbers, but have been proven wrong. Just take the incompatibility of the first and second HardyLittlewood conjectures for instance. 

20220924, 13:00  #103 
Dec 2008
you know...around...
2^{6}·13 Posts 
We would like to believe that Polignac's conjecture is correct. All the numbers explicitly calculated so far are in favor of the conjecture, and we have asymptotic formulas that predict the number of occurrences of prime tuples with almost incredible accuracy. You probably won't find anyone who believes the conjecture is wrong.
BUT the only thing we know for sure, backed by stringent mathematical proof, is that there is at least one even number m <= 246 such that infinitely many prime pairs m apart exist. That's all. Yes, the obvious can be hard to accept. The not so obvious is even harder to accept. 
20220924, 13:08  #104 
Undefined
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair
2^{4}×5×83 Posts 

20220924, 14:14  #105 
Dec 2008
you know...around...
2^{6}·13 Posts 

20220924, 14:18  #106 
Undefined
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair
2^{4}·5·83 Posts 

20220924, 17:47  #107  
Jul 2014
38_{16} Posts 
Quote:
because they have nothing to do with my work, and are mainly political statements (in the sense they are devoid of any mathematical content). Let me guess, you've never read my paper(s), or seen my video. Right? You have no idea what I've presented as the mathematical basis of my "proof". Right? If your life depended it on it you couldn't accurately state what I say constitutes my proof. Right? So do this: Print out my paper(s), and take out a magic marker, and highlight EXACTLY what you think are mathematically erroneous, and/or inconsistent, and unproved statements, and why. Then write down these passages, citing the erroneous content, with page and paragraph number. Then post here these exact passages from MY WORK you have issues with, and then, and only then, can we have a genuine discussion about the math that I've presented, and the arguments I make. But really, I don't think you really care anything about the math I've presented, because you've had the opportunity (along with everybody else) to already do this, so we could have a mathematical discussion. Apparently all you have the time to do is make off hand statements about things you have no knowledge of. And unfortunately, you represent a large portion of the people who've similarly commented in this forum. If I'm wrong, SHOW ME WHERE IN MY WORK I'M WRONG!! If YOU (et al) can't do that, then save yourselves some time and just leave it alone. 

20220924, 18:39  #108  
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
10011100000100_{2} Posts 
Quote:
This is already the second topic beyond math where you use words without understanding their meaning. Quote:
Quote:
Wrong. 

20220924, 19:19  #109 
Dec 2008
you know...around...
1101000000_{2} Posts 
Section 6, "The Infinity of Primes": "Thus, any prime p can be treated as r0 to a Pn modulus composed of all the primes < p, whose residues from p to p² are new primes. We can repeat this progression of primes process forever, to always generate new primes."
This last statement is derived from numerical data only. You haven't given proof that we are guaranteed to always see another prime when going from e.g. p² to (p+2)²  while at every such step one prime is taken away at the start of the interval. Common counterexample: From numerical data only, one might deduce that Li(x)pi(x) is always positive, but we've known for over a century now that this is not the case for all x. The number of primes between p² and (p+1)² show similar fluctuations, albeit not as large as those Li(x)pi(x) values. Yet, how can we be sure that this number doesn't drop down to zero at some p? Section 9, "Proof By Contradiction": "Thus for there to be a finite number of TwinsCousins, et al, we must have a1 = a2 = 0 starting with some Pn, and remaining so forever." No, since you're looking at a PGS of finite structure, as opposed to the infinite structure of prime numbers. The problem is eventually related to what I wrote above. Did I miss something else? 
20220924, 20:41  #110 
Mar 2019
2×5×31 Posts 
If you're right, why haven't you submitted your proof to a reputable mathematics journal?
Also, please learn what "ad hominem" means. Last fiddled with by mathwiz on 20220924 at 21:24 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Twin Prime Constellations  robert44444uk  Prime Gap Searches  45  20220224 18:28 
How do you efficiently sieve for prime 3/4tuples?  PuzzlePeter  Software  156  20190603 20:19 
find very easy twin prime in the infamy twin primes  hal1se  Miscellaneous Math  13  20181105 16:34 
Highest Prime is also a twin prime... NOT  hydeer  Lone Mersenne Hunters  9  20180403 22:54 
Twin Prime Days, Prime Day Clusters  cuBerBruce  Puzzles  3  20141201 18:15 