Re: 23 primes in arithmetic progression.
From: Phil Carmody (thefatphil_demunged_at_yahoo.co.uk)
Date: 07/29/04
- Next message: Phil Carmody: "Re: x^n in min. multiplications"
- Previous message: Phil Carmody: "Re: Cantor's proof that #(Evens) = #(Naturals) is inconsistent"
- In reply to: Matthijs Hebly: "Re: 23 primes in arithmetic progression."
- Next in thread: Gerry Myerson: "Re: 23 primes in arithmetic progression."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 29 Jul 2004 12:36:40 +0300
Matthijs Hebly <heeb@iname.com> writes:
> Phil Carmody wrote:
> > Unless one of the primes is divisible by 13.
> Eh, isn't *13* the only prime divisible by 13?
Kinda-sorta, yes. (-13 would also work, of course, if you were to
permit -ve primes; some consider this to be 'cheating', prefering
N to Z.)
That was my _entirely_ my point. You _can_ have a multiple of 13 in
an arithmetic progression of primes of length 13, with a step between
the terms _not_ being a multiple of 13#, as previously claimed.
Phil
-- 1st bug in MS win2k source code found after 20 minutes: scanline.cpp 2nd and 3rd bug found after 10 more minutes: gethost.c Both non-exploitable. (The 2nd/3rd ones might be, depending on the CRTL)
- Next message: Phil Carmody: "Re: x^n in min. multiplications"
- Previous message: Phil Carmody: "Re: Cantor's proof that #(Evens) = #(Naturals) is inconsistent"
- In reply to: Matthijs Hebly: "Re: 23 primes in arithmetic progression."
- Next in thread: Gerry Myerson: "Re: 23 primes in arithmetic progression."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|