3 Apr
2013
3 Apr
'13
12:05 p.m.
--agggh. Am I becoming senile? Sorry, my brain appears to have suffered a sign-reversal failure, the demonstration mod 60 actually proves sort of the opposite of what I intended. Anyway it is not valid. On 4/3/13, Warren D Smith <warren.wds@gmail.com> wrote:
Letting C be the fraction of primes with the property that altering any bit destroys primality, it occurs to me I can prove limsup C <= 3/8 by arguing that every prime p=1 mod 60 has p+2=composite, p=7(60) ==> p-2 composite, p=11(60) ==> p-2 compo, p=13(60) ==> p+2 compo, p=23(60) ==> p-2 compo, and similarly for -1,-7,-11,-13,-23.
-- Warren D. Smith http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking "endorse" as 1st step)