theuser77
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
.ii
0
reply
Noble.
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Exact same issues as was explained to you rather extensively on the "Proof is Trivial" thread. Your lemma 5 isn't mathematically correct, so you certainly can't conclude anything about twin-primes. Also, as you've used this same lemma to 'prove' the second result it isn't a correct proof.

Without wanting to sound demotivating, if this kind of intuitively obvious approach to solving problems about primes actually worked the problems would've been solved a long time ago, without much hassle.
0
reply
theuser77
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#3
(Original post by Noble.)
Exact same issues as was explained to you rather extensively on the "Proof is Trivial" thread. Your lemma 5 isn't mathematically correct, so you certainly can't conclude anything about twin-primes. Also, as you've used this same lemma to 'prove' the second result it isn't a correct proof.

Without wanting to sound demotivating, if this kind of intuitively obvious approach to solving problems about primes actually worked the problems would've been solved a long time ago, without much hassle.
i have used a completely different approach with lemma 5, so the same points used previously do not apply. Please can you explain what is wrong with this proof of lemma 5.
0
reply
Noble.
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
(Original post by theuser77)
i have used a completely different approach with lemma 5, so the same points used previously do not apply. Please can you explain what is wrong with this proof of lemma 5.
No, the exact same points apply because you've changed the wrong part of the proof. The issue, as explained on the Proof is Trivial thread by myself and ukdragon37, is that you can't conclude anything about infinite twin-primes from lemma 5.
0
reply
theuser77
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by Noble.)
No, the exact same points apply because you've changed the wrong part of the proof. The issue, as explained on the Proof is Trivial thread by myself and ukdragon37, is that you can't conclude anything about infinite twin-primes from lemma 5.
but surely if each value of Q yields a unique twin primes, and there are an infinite number of Q's then why wouldnt that imply an infinite number of unique twin prime solutions.
There is a one to one relationship between twin primes and values of Q.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have the space and resources you need to succeed in home learning?

Yes I have everything I need (413)
56.42%
I don't have everything I need (319)
43.58%

Watched Threads

View All