You are not logged in.
I've been thinking a bit about this..
We can create an arbitrarily long string of length k of consecutive non-primes by considering (k+1)! + 2, (k+1)! + 3 .... (k+1)! + (k+1). We can make k as big as we want. Why doesn't this suggest there's a finite number of primes?
Thanks
Is it maybe because the actual size of the numbers increases more rapidly than the length of the string?
For example,
gives the sequence and gives the sequence . You can see that there is a big gap between 9 and 26 where prime numbers can be found.Last edited by JaneFairfax (2010-01-08 00:45:52)
Offline
Hi Jane;
If I prove that some subset B of a set A is infinite as his set is, haven't I proved that the set A itself is also infinite?
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Why doesn't this suggest there's a finite number of primes?
For the same reason that the sequence
Does not suggest there's a finite number of primes.
bobby: Yes. This would suffice to prove that the integers are infinite, assuming that you've been able to define them without implicitly having this property.
"In the real world, this would be a problem. But in mathematics, we can just define a place where this problem doesn't exist. So we'll go ahead and do that now..."
Offline
Hi Ricky;
Thanks!
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline