**Next message:**John Clark: "Re: Dinosaur extinction anyone?"**Previous message:**Adrian Tymes: "Re: I strongly disagree with Lee's answer"**In reply to:**Spike Jones: "Re: Primes and Probability"**Next in thread:**Spike Jones: "Re: Primes and Probability"**Reply:**Spike Jones: "Re: Primes and Probability"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Spike writes

*>> Now I would think that surely the probability that C+2 is
*

*>> prime is indeed proportional to 1/ln(C+2). Yes? It would be
*

*>> marvelous if someone had found otherwise. What's the connection?
*

*>Since we have no reason to believe that the probability of C+2
*

*>is anything other than 1 / ln(C+2), lets assume it so. Now open
*

*>a spreadsheet to make this easier. Get your two randomly chosen
*

*>primes (neither of which can be 2), multiply them together to
*

*>generate the composite C. Now fill down, C+2, C+4, and so on.
*

*>In the next column calculate 1 / ln {the first column}. The second
*

*>column is the probability of each number to its left being prime.
*

*>Now calculate the cumulative probability of C+2 and C+4 prime,
*

*>then C+6 also prime, and so on.
*

*>
*

*>What did you find out?
*

All I know is (1) one of C+2, C+4, C+6 is composite, so summing

the probability is going to start giving a funny result, (2) 1/lnx

is a rather poor approximation, and so summing it is doubly suspicious.

But I have some good materials on "The Prime Number Theorem" and

will try to have a go at them.

Lee

**Next message:**John Clark: "Re: Dinosaur extinction anyone?"**Previous message:**Adrian Tymes: "Re: I strongly disagree with Lee's answer"**In reply to:**Spike Jones: "Re: Primes and Probability"**Next in thread:**Spike Jones: "Re: Primes and Probability"**Reply:**Spike Jones: "Re: Primes and Probability"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30
: Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:04 MDT
*