Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> The reason that "multiply the lot add 1" works is that it is merely
> another form
> of primes such as 2k+1 or 2k-1. One form that does not work is 2k for
> 2 is the
> only even prime number. Twin Primes are of the form k,k+2 such as 3,5
> but there
> are primes of form k,k+2,k+4 such as 3,5,7.
>
The idea here is that most forms of primes are infinite.
Now that raises an interesting question about some alleged forms under
Natural-Numbers = finite integers are shown to be finite. I believe I
remember
this in connection with Whitehead over a discussion of the Riemann
Hypothesis
where he imagines that RH is false because of some forms of prime
slowly and
gradually end up as finite. I do not remember what form of primes it
was.
The reason I bring this issue up, is because, under Natural-Numbers =
infinite
integers, I suspect those forms that were thought to and proven as
finite, are, now,
once again truly infinite sets of primes.
I also remember trying to graph that sequence of primes to try to get
a sense of
how they stopped, never to continue. But in infinite integers I want
to reraise that issue
for I have the sneaky suspicion that such a form was really infinite
after all.
Now is the Riemann Hypothesis true or false? I cannot remember clearly
what conclusions
I had last drawn on RH, and my problem stemming from too many irons in
the fire. I believe
I ended up last time concluding RH was false. But I like to reenter
that analysis the next time
by comparing RH with e^(i x 2pi) = 1. Can we relate strictly RH with
Euler's identity? If we can
do so, then the failure of Euler's Identity is the fact that we have e
and pi belong to a different geometry
than does i. And realizing that, we realize that the Euler Identity is
nothing more than
n^0 = 1 and where i has the value of 0 in NonEuclidean geomety
accounting for the Euler
Identity.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
