20061001, 09:08  #1 
May 2006
29 Posts 
A (new) prime theorem.
"A Prime Number Theorem" was published in 1986
(ISBN 87 7245 129 7, Rhodos Publishers Copenhagen, DK). "Possible primes" were defined as [(6*m)+1], m being an integer from  infinity to + infinity. Negative possible primes (5,11,17,23.....) have modules V, II or VIII. Positive possible primes (1,7,13,19,25,....) have modules I, VII or IV. The integers 2 and 3 cannot be defined as possible primes (6*m +1) and should not be considered as primes. The integer 1 is a square (6*0 +1)*(6*0 +1), just as 25 is equal to [(6*(1) +1)] * [(6*(1) +1)] and 49 is equal to [(6*(+1) +1)] * [(6*(+1) +1)]. Products of possible primes remain possible primes 36 * (n*m) + 6* (n+m) +1, n being an integer from  infinity to + infinity. All Mersenne primes are positive possible primes and will be defined in a later thread. Troels Munkneer ] 
20061001, 21:13  #2  
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
4,271 Posts 
Quote:
Last fiddled with by MiniGeek on 20061001 at 21:13 Reason: typo 

20061001, 23:28  #3  
Undefined
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair
2^{2}·3·17·31 Posts 
Quote:


20061002, 12:59  #4 
Feb 2006
Denmark
2·5·23 Posts 
troels munkner doesn't follow standard definitions and conventions, and his work is not supported by others.
I suggest moving this thread to Miscellaneous Math Threads. If I were a moderator, I would ask him to only post about his "possible primes" there. Maybe merge this thread with some of his similar unsupported stuff here or here. And delete his duplicate post in Information & Answers. 
20061002, 16:51  #5  
∂^{2}ω=0
Sep 2002
Repรบblica de California
13×29×31 Posts 
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:


20061004, 15:52  #6  
May 2006
29 Posts 
Quote:
All integers from  infinity to + infinity can be subdivided into three groups. A. Even integers which will be products of 2 and an other integer. B. Odd integers divisible by 3 which will be products of 3 and an other odd integer. C. Odd integers which are not divisible by 3. Their general form is (6*m +1), m being an integer from  infinity to + infinity. These integers can be grouped as "possible primes" and comprise real primes and possible prime products. All possible primes are "located" along a straight line wuith an individual difference of 6, i.e. (6*m +1)  (35), (29), (23), (17), (11), (5), 1,7,13,19,25,31,37  (6*m +1) Possible primes constitute exactly one third of allo integers. By modulation (modulo 9) possible primes have modules II,V,VIII,or I,IV,VII. Y.s. Troels Munkner 

20061004, 16:28  #7  
Bamboozled!
"๐บ๐๐ท๐ท๐ญ"
May 2003
Down not across
2·5,557 Posts 
Quote:
Where you go seriously off the rails is your claim that neither 2 nor 3 is a prime number. By making this statement you are not using the word "prime" in the same sense as it is used by essentially all mathematicians. Like Humpty Dumpty you are at liberty to use whatever words you wish with whatever meaning you choose to assign to them The downside of that freedom is that if you use words with a meaning different from that understood by everyone else, you can guarantee that noone will understand you. If your objective is to annoy others and/or make yourself look stupid  fair enough, though we have the freedom to ridicule you and/or express our annoyance. On the other hand, if you wish to communicate your ideas it is a very good idea to use a common language and that includes using words which have mutually agreed meaning. Paul 

20061004, 16:48  #8  
"Jacob"
Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium
3^{2}×197 Posts 
Quote:
So all numbers of the form 6 * m + 5 (where m is an integer) are not integers. I can deduce from that, that 31 for instance can not be an integer, and thus not be a "possible prime", since it would require m = 5 to get 6 * 5 + 1 = 31. 

20061004, 17:08  #9  
Nov 2003
16444_{8} Posts 
Quote:
multiplication FAILS. Take the number 3025. It is in the set. So are 25 (a prime), 121 (a prime) and 55 (a prime). But 3025 = 25*121 (product of two primes) = 55*55 (square of a different prime!) So we have a number that is the square of a prime also equal to the product of two different primes! 

20061004, 17:14  #10  
Bronze Medalist
Jan 2004
Mumbai,India
2^{2}×3^{3}×19 Posts 
Quote:
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 

20061004, 17:41  #11 
∂^{2}ω=0
Sep 2002
Repรบblica de California
13×29×31 Posts 
See, if the original poster used language more like that (or had anything meaningful to say), we might take him more seriously...

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Is there any such theorem that states this?  soumya  Miscellaneous Math  17  20130328 10:26 
Fermats theorem and defining a 'full set' for any prime.  David John Hill Jr  Miscellaneous Math  32  20090313 21:45 
New exact theorem  Master Alex  Miscellaneous Math  38  20070305 18:30 
Number Theorem  herege  Math  25  20061118 09:54 
Fermat's Fuzzy Theorem  any good for new prime test?  bearnol  Miscellaneous Math  9  20051116 13:19 