Source
r/math•
rooly

A little something I've been thinking about for quite some time... (primes)

A few years back I noticed a bit of a trend in that aweful subject of primes. When you add any two consecutive primes together the sum, plus and minus one, produces a pair of numbers that are each separately either prime, a prime square, or a multiple of exactly two primes.

Now I haven't done an awful lot of research on the subject, but I've not come across any mentions of this phenomena relating to its validity or even existence.

Do any redditors know something about this or is it novel to a degree?

Just so you guys know, its not worth trying to pass this off as your own since I've already got a nationally published mention of working on it. But feel free to prove or disprove to your heart's content as I have no claim to that.

edit: Disproven in 8 minutes. Wow...okay, I said long time, I didn't mean lots of thought however. Most of the intricacies of this idea are long lost to me, as I've never really cared enough since those first few days to test it out.

Posted Oct 6, 2010, 4:37 AM UTC · edited

010
moom•

47 + 53 - 1 = 99

3
[deleted]•

[deleted]

-2
moom•

Christ, man. You brag about a "nationally published mention of working on it", and preemptively admonish everyone for trying to steal your fantabulous idea, and then when it's pointed out to you that it's clear that you didn't even bother to minimally check it (that counterexample I gave was merely the fifteenth pair of consecutive primes), you flippantly propose another variation for no particular reason, and you expect me to check this new variation for you?

Well, you're in luck, this one more time:

104723 + 104729 - 1 = 209451

209451 = 3 * 11 * 11 * 577

And no, I'm not implying that that's the smallest such counterexample.

Don't expect me to check your next random assertion for you.

6
[deleted]•

[deleted]

-2
moom•

The best of your research skills at the time were insufficient for checking fifteen examples before going national?

3
yesmanappleGeometry/Topology•

3371+3373+1=6745

Factors of 6745: 5,19,71.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

-2
lutusp•

.. its not worth trying to pass this off as your own since I've already got a nationally published mention of working on it ...

Don't worry -- no one is going to try to steal your idea. Most of us (a) have computers and (b) are skeptical of untested claims. You only meet condition (a).

3
[deleted]•

[deleted]

0
moom•

There's a reason I always called it a trend and never anything more. It only works for a subset of primes

You directly said that you will get such-and-such by doing such-and-such, and it's blatantly clear that you did not think otherwise, since the pattern that you claim falls apart very quickly, and you were unaware of that fact until it was pointed out to you.

Christ. Just stop digging yourself in deeper with these increasingly silly "explanations".

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

0
moom•

Hah! Yeah, right. You replied to every single comment of mine except one, with that one being one in which I brusquely dismissed you. But no, you didn't try to hold a conversation with me.

I repeat, just stop digging yourself deeper. I'm being totally frank here, man, and I'm not trying to be mean: Every reply of yours just looks sillier and sillier. They're all directly and obviously at odds with things that you previously said.

Just accept the fact that you clearly didn't put even a modicum of effort into your idea before proclaiming it worthy of the world's notice and preemptively admonishing people for stealing it, stop making up lame excuses, and just move on with your life.

Now, I'm going to be nice, and give you a hint that will hopefully let you see the facts behind why you noticed your super awesome "don't steal my super awesome idea" idea:

Look at all integers in the very very small range that you obviously considered before proclaiming what you proclaimed.

What's the chance of finding one that is not a prime, a multiple of two primes, a square of a prime, or a multiple of a prime and the square of a prime?

Just start counting, from two. Two is a prime. Three is a prime. Four is the square of a prime. Five is a prime. Six is a multiple of two primes. Seven is a prime. Eight is a multiple of a prime and the square of a prime. Nine is the square of a prime. Ten is a multiple of two primes. Eleven is a prime. Twelve is a prime times the square of a prime. Blah blah blah.

In the largest range that you possibly checked within, 2 through 98 (since you obviously didn't check 99), there are only 20 integers that don't fit one of your groups. And if you were to yet again expand your supposition, as I am guessing you probably would have if you hadn't received negative feedback: There are only eight integers in that entire range that have more than two unique prime factors.

It doesn't have anything to do with the way that you picked a number in that range (multiplying consecutive primes and adding or subtracting one); it merely has to do with the fact that you picked a number in that range.

Finally, as for my interest in this matter, you're correct that I'm more interested in you specifically than in the claim that you posed. This is because of two reasons:

(1) The claim is obviously not correct, and you would have known that had you invested minimal effort into it before proclaiming to the world that they shouldn't steal your awesome idea;

(2) You are simply fascinating; in addition to the ridiculous "don't steal my awesome theory which I obviously didn't put any effort at all into checking the veracity of", you keep coming up with lamer and lamer excuses that are clearly at odds with things that you previously said. So, again, if you want me to stop calling you out, then I once again suggest that you just stop digging yourself in deeper.

1
[deleted]•

I'm curious what this nationally published mention you are referring to is. Can you give a link or something?

1