20061024, 12:17  #45  
Jan 2006
JHB, South Africa
157 Posts 
Quote:
I shall however, continue to monitor this thread with a chuckle and snort waiting in bated breath for my epithany! Regards Patrick 

20061024, 14:29  #46 
Nov 2003
2^{2}·5·373 Posts 
I will be patient.....
You have partioned the integers according to their congruence class mod 6, skipping the class equal to 5 mod 6. Now what? Do you actually have a theorem to state? Trivially, the class that is 1 mod 6 is closed under multiplication and has no member divisible by 2 or 3. Where do you go from here? 
20061024, 16:27  #47  
∂^{2}ω=0
Sep 2002
Repรบblica de California
11,689 Posts 
I'm starting to get worried about Dr. Silverman ... first he replies politely and with saintlike patience to that insane Raman666 guy that's been stinking up the Factoring forum, now this ... Bob, whatever magic "herb" you recently discovered in your backyard garden  would you consider selling some?
Quote:
"It's one louder, isn't it?" (Or in this case, "one primer.") 

20061024, 17:46  #49  
Bronze Medalist
Jan 2004
Mumbai,India
2^{2}·3^{3}·19 Posts 
Eleven
Quote:
It might be the 'magic' herb Brahmi ( Bacopa monnieri ) well known to the Indian gurus. Nature gives the hint as it is shaped like the brain and also has convolutions resembling it. Ever wondered how the Chinese discovered Ging Seng ? Well the same way thru Nature. Quote:
That reminds me I hated, decades ago, the sign outside and inside the London pubs. 'We close at Eleven' which prepared the customers to be ready for work the next morning . On saturdays and sundays we would have 'elevenses' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevenses Mally 

20061024, 19:02  #50 
∂^{2}ω=0
Sep 2002
Repรบblica de California
11,689 Posts 
And don't forget to look for our good friend Nigel in one of the recent Volkswagen "VDubs Rock" TV Ads:
"This amplifier has airbags ... (falls over backwards with a loud crash) ... I'm OK..." Last fiddled with by ewmayer on 20061026 at 19:25 Reason: added link to youtube video clip 
20061025, 11:32  #51  
May 2006
29 Posts 
explanation
Quote:
Dear Richard, Thanks for your comments. Let me start with your final suggestion. I don't mind to change terminology from "possible primes" to "Munkner integers". These expressions cover in fact the same integers. To use "numbers" instead of "integers" makes no difference, but points to the fact (already mentioned in my publicationn from 1986) that all "Munkner integers" can be "replaced" by their natural number M from  infinity to + infinity:(7),(6),(5),(4),(3),(2),(1), 0,1,2,3,4,5,6 , corresponding to (41),(35),(29),(23),(17),(11),(5), 1,7,13,19,25,31, Now I think that you agree to my statement that ((6*M)+1) will never be divisible by 2 or 3, as (6*M) is divisible by 2 and 3. Odd integers with modules 0,III or VI (modulo 9) will never be primes (21 has module III, 51 has module VI, 117 has module 0). The rest of the odd integers with modules II,V,VIII or I,IV,VII will be primes or prime products (i.e. "Munkner integers"). Your remark "all primes > 3 are Munkner numbers" should read "all primes > 3 and all prime products of primes > 3 are Munkner integers". But you forget the integer 1, which is a product (a square) of ((6*0)+1) and ((6*0)+1). You may ask me about the advantages of the terminology "Munkner integers". They will be evident when I describe the dissection (i.e. the factorization) of Munkner integers and in addition the dissection of the "Mersenne integers" which constitute a few primes and a vast majority of prime products. Y.s. troels 

20061025, 11:34  #52  
Nov 2003
7460_{10} Posts 
Quote:
(1) Only a crank names a mathematical idea after himself. (2) You still have not said anything intelligent. 

20061025, 11:40  #53 
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
4,271 Posts 

20061025, 12:07  #54  
Bamboozled!
"๐บ๐๐ท๐ท๐ญ"
May 2003
Down not across
3×5×743 Posts 
Quote:
I applaud the change in nomenclature. It greatly reduces opportunities for confusion. Like you, I'm still waiting for something intelligent to be said. Paul 

20061025, 12:52  #55 
Nov 2003
2^{2}·5·373 Posts 

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 