Possiblie Prime Positions
 

Hello,

I do sieves (of Eratosthenes), and since a bit, I use sequences lenght 30, with 8 PPP, because each time you move up a # (2#=2, 3#=6...), you take away the inverse proportion of the primorial times what's left (1-1*1/2=1/2, 1/2-1/3*1/2=1/3), and from 7# on, some divisible numbers in the first sequence, ex 121 become PPP.


By the way, I saw a video saying that everyone thinks that the second Hardy Littlewood conjecture is false, I wonder why, does someone have any ideas?


Thanks

[QUOTE=R2357;559064] By the way, I saw a video saying that everyone thinks that the second Hardy Littlewood conjecture is false, I wonder why, does someone have any ideas?[/QUOTE]
This part is explained in [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Hardy%E2%80%93Littlewood_conjecture[/url] – if the First Hardy–Littlewood conjecture is true, then this implies that the second Hardy–Littlewood conjecture is false. So both cannot be true. Most people believe in the first one. /JeppeSN

I mean for a period of 2#=2, 2n+1, for 3#=6, 6n+1, 6n+5, for 5#=30, 30n+1, +7, +11, +13, +17, +19, +23, +29...


(LaurV: sorry buddy, I had to edit your post to delete the quote of my message, which was unapproved by other moderators, so I had to retract it - it was a bad joke, sorry again. I didn't change your text, the clarification is useful).

Thanks

[QUOTE=R2357;559064]By the way, I saw a video saying that everyone thinks that the second Hardy Littlewood conjecture is false, I wonder why, does someone have any ideas?[/QUOTE]

Take a look at [URL="http://www.opertech.com/primes/k-tuples.html"]http://www.opertech.com/primes/k-tuples.html[/URL], they are trying to disproof the second conjecture by finding a counter example.

I don't get it!
With only the multiples of the first 26 primes taken away, less than 12% of numbers remain as potentials, 446/3159 is more than 14%. How could they possibly find a counter example in a region over 10^174?