"Paul Sperry" <plsperry@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:130520080304069683%plsperry@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> In article <9RWVj.40168$yq6.23736@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Jack <jj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
> [
>> > > Generally my argument takes the pattern: "For any given m, and for
>> > > all
>> > > intervals of length y-x+1..."
> ]
>> > I read this to say that m is fixed and all intervals have the same
>> > length. If that is so then all you need to do is say, somewhere near
>> > the start, "Let m and a be positive integers." If you do that,
>> > subsequently you will only need to reference the starting points of
>> > your intervals - the intervals will be [x, x + a] (or maybe
>> > [x, x + a + 1] if you prefer) for your various x's. With m and a
fixed
>> > your M_1 could be instead M_x which would convey all the needed
>> > information.
>>
>> But m is an integer that I have defined as a number of primes, such
that
>> P(m) contains the first m primes.
>
> I understand; does it change? Could you, for example, do everything you
> want to do with, say, m = 6?
No; as far as I'm concerned, m has to be a variable and what I am trying
to
prove must hold for any and every possible m.
|
