4 ms·

I thought this was already know, been using in a pet project for a few years, though I don't use numbers near infinity and with that you have to give the chap c

by Zenst 13y ago

I thought this was already know, been using in a pet project for a few years, though I don't use numbers near infinity and with that you have to give the chap credit as it is due. Shame it is not a prime number of pages as well and simpler in explanation. Maybe for his next paper he could do: "Every even number greater than five is the sum of three primes and one" Though one is a funny prime and with that I did not say four primes too keep the peace. Can reference his previous paper and with that get two papers for less than 134 pages compared to only one proof for 133 pages. No I can't say what my pet project is, not everybody does lottery tickets ;).

grimman 13y ago
"numbers near infinity" is such a neat thing to say, because you're always going to be wrong. Or are you? ;)
Fargren 13y ago
though one is a funny prime and with that I did not say four primes too keep the peace. One is not prime. A prime number is a natural number p (positive integer) p>1 that has only the two divisors 1 and p [1]. [1]http://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Prime_number http://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Prime_number
- gizmo686 13y ago
  It is not unreasonable to construct prime numbers to include 1. It is just that, over time, the mathametics community came to the consensus that the set of primes that does not include 1 is more useful. If primes were constructed to include 1, math would not be seriously different, we would simply have to say 'prime greater than 1' when we want to exlude one. The same way that we often have to say x/=0 when we divide by x.
frontfor 13y ago
> I thought this was already know, been using in a pet project for a few years You were merely assuming that the conjecture is true. Actually proving it is a non-trivial task. Oh and I look forward to hear your "simpler explanation", given that you have been using it "for a few years" ;)
euccastro 13y ago
Counterexample: 6.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  Okay off-by-one, greater than 7. But more fun is 'every even number 10 and up is the sum of at most four primes, at least one of them being 3.
  - Zenst 13y ago
    Hmm, this is also very very true, Curse you the Number TWO being a prime and not poor Number ONE. The madness :0. So maybe (5x2)+1 onwards, though wondering that any two primes +2 will alwys mess that one up. Still all that said nothing about the said even number not being also able to be made up by three primes without adding +1 ;). But still Wondering now how many clash's and with that it does get down to the case of: Any Two primes + 2 would be three prime numbers and also a even number, we all know that too be true and fact, even if those primes are also the value of 2. Numbers are such fun, more so when you question them, learn them and respect, or indeed change them. They are still fun.
- Zenst 13y ago
  Yes 6 is already three primes: 2+2+2 Well pointed out. So from 7 onwards then :blush:-)

by Zenst 13y ago

grimman 13y ago

"numbers near infinity" is such a neat thing to say, because you're always going to be wrong. Or are you? ;)

Fargren 13y ago

though one is a funny prime and with that I did not say four primes too keep the peace. One is not prime. A prime number is a natural number p (positive integer) p>1 that has only the two divisors 1 and p [1]. [1]http://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Prime_number http://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Prime_number

gizmo686 13y ago
It is not unreasonable to construct prime numbers to include 1. It is just that, over time, the mathametics community came to the consensus that the set of primes that does not include 1 is more useful. If primes were constructed to include 1, math would not be seriously different, we would simply have to say 'prime greater than 1' when we want to exlude one. The same way that we often have to say x/=0 when we divide by x.

frontfor 13y ago

> I thought this was already know, been using in a pet project for a few years You were merely assuming that the conjecture is true. Actually proving it is a non-trivial task. Oh and I look forward to hear your "simpler explanation", given that you have been using it "for a few years" ;)

euccastro 13y ago

Counterexample: 6.

Dylan16807 13y ago
Okay off-by-one, greater than 7. But more fun is 'every even number 10 and up is the sum of at most four primes, at least one of them being 3.
- Zenst 13y ago
  Hmm, this is also very very true, Curse you the Number TWO being a prime and not poor Number ONE. The madness :0. So maybe (5x2)+1 onwards, though wondering that any two primes +2 will alwys mess that one up. Still all that said nothing about the said even number not being also able to be made up by three primes without adding +1 ;). But still Wondering now how many clash's and with that it does get down to the case of: Any Two primes + 2 would be three prime numbers and also a even number, we all know that too be true and fact, even if those primes are also the value of 2. Numbers are such fun, more so when you question them, learn them and respect, or indeed change them. They are still fun.
Zenst 13y ago
Yes 6 is already three primes: 2+2+2 Well pointed out. So from 7 onwards then :blush:-)