20061023, 06:04  #34  
May 2006
11101_{2} Posts 
Quote:
The book was a gift. Sorry that you don't have the necessary time yo read the book. Please, ask me for additional information, and you will get it. In the near future I will publish a thread about the structure of Mersenne primes, which follow exactly the same line as the "possible primes". It is a pity, that other mathematicians don't have an open mind for new ideas in this field. Y.s. troels 

20061023, 10:45  #35  
May 2006
29 Posts 
Quote:
1 is false, 2 is true. Y.s. Troels Munkner 

20061023, 13:28  #36 
Jan 2006
JHB, South Africa
157 Posts 
I ask you then with tears in my baby blue eyes, if postive 5 is not a prime, then according to your definition, it must be composite. Please tell us the factors or is that a bit more difficult to do than factoring RSA2048??
Patrick123 
20061023, 15:28  #37  
Bronze Medalist
Jan 2004
Mumbai,India
804_{16} Posts 
factors
Quote:
I know you are talking about integers and may I ask which integers? In Gaussian integers indeed 5 has factors and I mention this as its quite a curiosity which struck my fantasy. Here they are; (1 + 2i )(1  2i ) = + 5 and ( 2i + 1 )(2i  1 ) = 5 Mally 

20061023, 16:01  #38  
∂^{2}ω=0
Sep 2002
República de California
11,689 Posts 
Quote:
Quote:
As I also noted, use of misleading/nonstandard/obfuscatory terminology is a hallmark of crankery. If you can't say whatever it is you think you have to say using nonambiguous, easilyunderstandable standard terminology, that tells me you're either trying to deliberately confuse, or you don't know what you're talking about. 

20061023, 16:10  #39  
May 2006
29 Posts 
unnecessary tears
Quote:
a) even integers b) odd integers divisible by 3 (modules 0,III,VI, modulo 9) c) odd integers with modules V,II,VIII or I,IV,VII. These integers can be formulated as [(6*m)+1] with m running from  infinity to + infinity. [((6*(1))+1] =  5 [(6*1) +1] = 7 Possible primes are "located" along a straigt line of integers (,35,29,23,17,11,5, 1,7,13,19,25,31 ) Sorry for your tears. I understand that you don't grasp anything. Y.s. troels munkner 

20061023, 16:12  #40  
Bronze Medalist
Jan 2004
Mumbai,India
2^{2}×3^{3}×19 Posts 
Quote:
Thank you Troels for the gift. I assure you I will treasure it and when I donate it in my will I hope some math'cian takes it up and completes the theory behind it. You asked for a proof of the infinitude of primes and you were given Euclid's which is the popular one even in this day Well there are others which I have but cannot reproduce them due to the complexity of the terms but I will mention their names and you can follow it up from the Book 'The little book of bigger primes' recommended to me by T Rex. and yes it is worth every dollar I paid for it. and the author is Paulo Ribenboim 2nd edition. I'm sure you could locate it in a library near by. The proofs are by Perrott (1881) Auric (1915), Metrod (1917) and Washington (1980). The last is via commutative algebra. They have been forgotten and that probably is our fate too in the long run. Well an Euler or a Gauss turn up every century to redirect the maths path but all cannot claim this honour and neither can they equal them. So best of luck Mally 

20061023, 16:16  #41  
Undefined
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair
2·3,167 Posts 
Quote:


20061024, 00:22  #42 
Feb 2006
Brasília, Brazil
3·71 Posts 
OK, mr. Munkner, thanks for your answer.
I have another question. You're calling some numbers "prime" and some other "not prime". The former are the ones which fit your 6m+1 formula and the latter are the ones which don't. My question is, besides fitting the formula above, do primes have any other feature in common? One that fits every prime and no "nonprime"? Please notice that, like my other questions, this one has only two possible answers. The answer must either be "no", or it'll be "yes". If it's "yes" I'd ask you to provide a definition of the common feature of all primes that is as simple, coherent and comprehensive as possible. Thanks a lot, Bruno PS: By common feature I specifically exclude being odd, since that follows from the formula, evidently. 
20061024, 10:56  #43  
May 2006
29 Posts 
Quote:
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 

20061024, 11:43  #44 
Oct 2005
Fribourg, Switzerlan
252_{10} Posts 
Since the words 'prime' and 'possible prime' already have mathematical definitions, we should not change these definitions. These words also have an historical value...
Mr. Munkner, I suggest you to invent a new set of words applying to your definitions. 
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 