Partial sums of primesWhy do primes dislike dividing the sum of all the preceding primes?Partial sums of multiplicative functionsAre all primes in a PAP-3?Uniform distribution of digits of 1/pPrimes $p$ for which $pk+1$ is prime for small $k$ (or approximating Sophie Germain)Sums of primes that are themselves primeNew proofs of Euclid's theorem of the infinitude of primes?For $k>3$ does there exist an odd prime $q_k$ such that $p_k=2^kq_k+1$ is prime and $p_k$ divides $a_k=dfrac3^2^k-1+12$?Two equivalent statements about primesPermutations $piin S_n$ with $p_k+p_pi(k)+1$ prime for all $k=1,ldots,n$Can such a triple of palindromatic numbers exist?
Partial sums of primes
Why do primes dislike dividing the sum of all the preceding primes?Partial sums of multiplicative functionsAre all primes in a PAP-3?Uniform distribution of digits of 1/pPrimes $p$ for which $pk+1$ is prime for small $k$ (or approximating Sophie Germain)Sums of primes that are themselves primeNew proofs of Euclid's theorem of the infinitude of primes?For $k>3$ does there exist an odd prime $q_k$ such that $p_k=2^kq_k+1$ is prime and $p_k$ divides $a_k=dfrac3^2^k-1+12$?Two equivalent statements about primesPermutations $piin S_n$ with $p_k+p_pi(k)+1$ prime for all $k=1,ldots,n$Can such a triple of palindromatic numbers exist?
$begingroup$
$2+3+5+7+11+13...$ is clearly the sum of the primes.
Now I consider partial sums such:
$2+3+5+7+11=28$ which is divisible by $7$
My question is:
are there infinitely many partial sums such that:
$p_1+p_2+p_3+...+p_k+p_k+1=m*p_k?$ with $m$ some positive integer? With Pari/gp apparently up to 10^10 there are only two examples $7$=$p_k$ and $8263=p_k$. Heuristically do you think that infinitely many such partial sums should exist? Note: 7 and 8263 are both primes belonging to primes on the left side of the triangle formed by listing successively the prime numbers in a triangular grid. See https://oeis.org/A078721
Note in both cases $2+3+5+7=17$ is prime and $2+3+5+...+p_1036=3974497$ is prime. I note that $17$ and $3974497$ are primes of the form $4s+1$, whereas $p_4=7$ and $p_1036=8263$ are primes of the form $6s+1$.
$7$ and $8263$ are primes such that starting from the right, the odd positioned digits are prime and the even positioned digits are composite. But also $5$ and $8243$ which are the previous primes have this property. No other prime of this type found below $10^12$
I noticed that 7! has 4 digits where 4 is a palindrome. 8263! has 28782 digits where 28782 is a palindrome.
nt.number-theory prime-numbers
asked Mar 25 at 15:56
Enzo CretiEnzo Creti
1
$endgroup$
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
$2+3+5+7+11+13...$ is clearly the sum of the primes.
Now I consider partial sums such:
$2+3+5+7+11=28$ which is divisible by $7$
My question is:
are there infinitely many partial sums such that:
$p_1+p_2+p_3+...+p_k+p_k+1=m*p_k?$ with $m$ some positive integer? With Pari/gp apparently up to 10^10 there are only two examples $7$=$p_k$ and $8263=p_k$. Heuristically do you think that infinitely many such partial sums should exist? Note: 7 and 8263 are both primes belonging to primes on the left side of the triangle formed by listing successively the prime numbers in a triangular grid. See https://oeis.org/A078721
Note in both cases $2+3+5+7=17$ is prime and $2+3+5+...+p_1036=3974497$ is prime. I note that $17$ and $3974497$ are primes of the form $4s+1$, whereas $p_4=7$ and $p_1036=8263$ are primes of the form $6s+1$.
$7$ and $8263$ are primes such that starting from the right, the odd positioned digits are prime and the even positioned digits are composite. But also $5$ and $8243$ which are the previous primes have this property. No other prime of this type found below $10^12$
I noticed that 7! has 4 digits where 4 is a palindrome. 8263! has 28782 digits where 28782 is a palindrome.
nt.number-theory prime-numbers
asked Mar 25 at 15:56
Enzo CretiEnzo Creti
1
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
Strongly related: mathoverflow.net/questions/120511/…. Also crossposted on MSE: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3161810/23571113 (please don't do this anymore).
$endgroup$
– Alex M.
Mar 25 at 22:31
3
$begingroup$
Seven edits in the last 12 hours.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 26 at 21:11
2
$begingroup$
Now up to Version 13.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 27 at 21:35
3
$begingroup$
I find these frequent edits go against the purpose of this forum. If you want to record frequent observations on a daily basis (whether they are significant or not), start a blog. You have asked a main question and gotten a reasonable answer; now move on. The numerology associated with the problem does not belong here. Next week, if you find a third prime satisfying the relations, you can report that here. Gerhard "Know When To Fold 'Em" Paseman, 2019.03.28.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
Mar 28 at 18:54
2
$begingroup$
Version 16. Please, homunc, give it a rest.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 28 at 21:30
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
$2+3+5+7+11+13...$ is clearly the sum of the primes.
Now I consider partial sums such:
$2+3+5+7+11=28$ which is divisible by $7$
My question is:
are there infinitely many partial sums such that:
$p_1+p_2+p_3+...+p_k+p_k+1=m*p_k?$ with $m$ some positive integer? With Pari/gp apparently up to 10^10 there are only two examples $7$=$p_k$ and $8263=p_k$. Heuristically do you think that infinitely many such partial sums should exist? Note: 7 and 8263 are both primes belonging to primes on the left side of the triangle formed by listing successively the prime numbers in a triangular grid. See https://oeis.org/A078721
Note in both cases $2+3+5+7=17$ is prime and $2+3+5+...+p_1036=3974497$ is prime. I note that $17$ and $3974497$ are primes of the form $4s+1$, whereas $p_4=7$ and $p_1036=8263$ are primes of the form $6s+1$.
$7$ and $8263$ are primes such that starting from the right, the odd positioned digits are prime and the even positioned digits are composite. But also $5$ and $8243$ which are the previous primes have this property. No other prime of this type found below $10^12$
I noticed that 7! has 4 digits where 4 is a palindrome. 8263! has 28782 digits where 28782 is a palindrome.
nt.number-theory prime-numbers
asked Mar 25 at 15:56
Enzo CretiEnzo Creti
1
$endgroup$
$2+3+5+7+11+13...$ is clearly the sum of the primes.
Now I consider partial sums such:
$2+3+5+7+11=28$ which is divisible by $7$
My question is:
are there infinitely many partial sums such that:
$p_1+p_2+p_3+...+p_k+p_k+1=m*p_k?$ with $m$ some positive integer? With Pari/gp apparently up to 10^10 there are only two examples $7$=$p_k$ and $8263=p_k$. Heuristically do you think that infinitely many such partial sums should exist? Note: 7 and 8263 are both primes belonging to primes on the left side of the triangle formed by listing successively the prime numbers in a triangular grid. See https://oeis.org/A078721
Note in both cases $2+3+5+7=17$ is prime and $2+3+5+...+p_1036=3974497$ is prime. I note that $17$ and $3974497$ are primes of the form $4s+1$, whereas $p_4=7$ and $p_1036=8263$ are primes of the form $6s+1$.
$7$ and $8263$ are primes such that starting from the right, the odd positioned digits are prime and the even positioned digits are composite. But also $5$ and $8243$ which are the previous primes have this property. No other prime of this type found below $10^12$
I noticed that 7! has 4 digits where 4 is a palindrome. 8263! has 28782 digits where 28782 is a palindrome.
nt.number-theory prime-numbers
nt.number-theory prime-numbers
asked Mar 25 at 15:56
Enzo CretiEnzo Creti
1
asked Mar 25 at 15:56
Enzo CretiEnzo Creti
1
edited Mar 28 at 18:09
Enzo Creti
asked Mar 25 at 15:56
Enzo CretiEnzo Creti
1
asked Mar 25 at 15:56
Enzo CretiEnzo Creti
1
asked Mar 25 at 15:56
Enzo CretiEnzo Creti
1
1
6
$begingroup$
Strongly related: mathoverflow.net/questions/120511/…. Also crossposted on MSE: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3161810/23571113 (please don't do this anymore).
$endgroup$
– Alex M.
Mar 25 at 22:31
3
$begingroup$
Seven edits in the last 12 hours.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 26 at 21:11
2
$begingroup$
Now up to Version 13.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 27 at 21:35
3
$begingroup$
I find these frequent edits go against the purpose of this forum. If you want to record frequent observations on a daily basis (whether they are significant or not), start a blog. You have asked a main question and gotten a reasonable answer; now move on. The numerology associated with the problem does not belong here. Next week, if you find a third prime satisfying the relations, you can report that here. Gerhard "Know When To Fold 'Em" Paseman, 2019.03.28.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
Mar 28 at 18:54
2
$begingroup$
Version 16. Please, homunc, give it a rest.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 28 at 21:30
|
show 8 more comments
6
$begingroup$
Strongly related: mathoverflow.net/questions/120511/…. Also crossposted on MSE: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3161810/23571113 (please don't do this anymore).
$endgroup$
– Alex M.
Mar 25 at 22:31
3
$begingroup$
Seven edits in the last 12 hours.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 26 at 21:11
2
$begingroup$
Now up to Version 13.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 27 at 21:35
3
$begingroup$
I find these frequent edits go against the purpose of this forum. If you want to record frequent observations on a daily basis (whether they are significant or not), start a blog. You have asked a main question and gotten a reasonable answer; now move on. The numerology associated with the problem does not belong here. Next week, if you find a third prime satisfying the relations, you can report that here. Gerhard "Know When To Fold 'Em" Paseman, 2019.03.28.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
Mar 28 at 18:54
2
$begingroup$
Version 16. Please, homunc, give it a rest.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 28 at 21:30
6
6
$begingroup$
Strongly related: mathoverflow.net/questions/120511/…. Also crossposted on MSE: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3161810/23571113 (please don't do this anymore).
$endgroup$
– Alex M.
Mar 25 at 22:31
$begingroup$
Strongly related: mathoverflow.net/questions/120511/…. Also crossposted on MSE: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3161810/23571113 (please don't do this anymore).
$endgroup$
– Alex M.
Mar 25 at 22:31
3
3
$begingroup$
Seven edits in the last 12 hours.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 26 at 21:11
$begingroup$
Seven edits in the last 12 hours.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 26 at 21:11
2
2
$begingroup$
Now up to Version 13.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 27 at 21:35
$begingroup$
Now up to Version 13.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 27 at 21:35
3
3
$begingroup$
I find these frequent edits go against the purpose of this forum. If you want to record frequent observations on a daily basis (whether they are significant or not), start a blog. You have asked a main question and gotten a reasonable answer; now move on. The numerology associated with the problem does not belong here. Next week, if you find a third prime satisfying the relations, you can report that here. Gerhard "Know When To Fold 'Em" Paseman, 2019.03.28.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
Mar 28 at 18:54
$begingroup$
I find these frequent edits go against the purpose of this forum. If you want to record frequent observations on a daily basis (whether they are significant or not), start a blog. You have asked a main question and gotten a reasonable answer; now move on. The numerology associated with the problem does not belong here. Next week, if you find a third prime satisfying the relations, you can report that here. Gerhard "Know When To Fold 'Em" Paseman, 2019.03.28.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
Mar 28 at 18:54
2
2
$begingroup$
Version 16. Please, homunc, give it a rest.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 28 at 21:30
$begingroup$
Version 16. Please, homunc, give it a rest.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 28 at 21:30
|
show 8 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You asked for a heuristic answer.
There is an heuristic argument that infinitely many such partial sums should exist. Consider $P(k)$, an heuristic estimate of the probability that the partial sum of the first $k+1$ primes would be divisible by $p_k$. Now $$p_k sim k log k$$ and if only random chance were involved, $$P(k) approx frac1p_k sim frac1k log k$$
In that case, the expected number of primes with the property you want would be something like
$$int_2^infty frac1x log x,dx$$
and that integral diverges to infinity.
The reason it seems so rare is that the rate of divergence is like $log(log x)$ and while that function goes to infinity, "nobody ever sees it do so."
On the other hand, proving that there an infinite number of such values of $k$ (in the same sense that Euclid's argument proves there is no last prime) is probably quite difficult. And if the conjecture that there are an infinite number of such values of $k$ turned out to be false, proving that some particular $k$ is the last one with this property would seem to be even harder.
edited Mar 25 at 22:43
Peter Taylor
1536 bronze badges
answered Mar 25 at 16:42
Mark FischlerMark Fischler
1,0193 silver badges13 bronze badges
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Note this answer is essentially the same as David Speyer's in the question linked to in the comment by @Alex M. above.
$endgroup$
– Kimball
Mar 25 at 23:30
1
$begingroup$
"nobody ever sees it do so." - you made my day!
$endgroup$
– Wolfgang
Mar 26 at 9:26
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f326315%2fpartial-sums-of-primes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You asked for a heuristic answer.
There is an heuristic argument that infinitely many such partial sums should exist. Consider $P(k)$, an heuristic estimate of the probability that the partial sum of the first $k+1$ primes would be divisible by $p_k$. Now $$p_k sim k log k$$ and if only random chance were involved, $$P(k) approx frac1p_k sim frac1k log k$$
In that case, the expected number of primes with the property you want would be something like
$$int_2^infty frac1x log x,dx$$
and that integral diverges to infinity.
The reason it seems so rare is that the rate of divergence is like $log(log x)$ and while that function goes to infinity, "nobody ever sees it do so."
On the other hand, proving that there an infinite number of such values of $k$ (in the same sense that Euclid's argument proves there is no last prime) is probably quite difficult. And if the conjecture that there are an infinite number of such values of $k$ turned out to be false, proving that some particular $k$ is the last one with this property would seem to be even harder.
edited Mar 25 at 22:43
Peter Taylor
1536 bronze badges
answered Mar 25 at 16:42
Mark FischlerMark Fischler
1,0193 silver badges13 bronze badges
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Note this answer is essentially the same as David Speyer's in the question linked to in the comment by @Alex M. above.
$endgroup$
– Kimball
Mar 25 at 23:30
1
$begingroup$
"nobody ever sees it do so." - you made my day!
$endgroup$
– Wolfgang
Mar 26 at 9:26
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You asked for a heuristic answer.
There is an heuristic argument that infinitely many such partial sums should exist. Consider $P(k)$, an heuristic estimate of the probability that the partial sum of the first $k+1$ primes would be divisible by $p_k$. Now $$p_k sim k log k$$ and if only random chance were involved, $$P(k) approx frac1p_k sim frac1k log k$$
In that case, the expected number of primes with the property you want would be something like
$$int_2^infty frac1x log x,dx$$
and that integral diverges to infinity.
The reason it seems so rare is that the rate of divergence is like $log(log x)$ and while that function goes to infinity, "nobody ever sees it do so."
On the other hand, proving that there an infinite number of such values of $k$ (in the same sense that Euclid's argument proves there is no last prime) is probably quite difficult. And if the conjecture that there are an infinite number of such values of $k$ turned out to be false, proving that some particular $k$ is the last one with this property would seem to be even harder.
edited Mar 25 at 22:43
Peter Taylor
1536 bronze badges
answered Mar 25 at 16:42
Mark FischlerMark Fischler
1,0193 silver badges13 bronze badges
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Note this answer is essentially the same as David Speyer's in the question linked to in the comment by @Alex M. above.
$endgroup$
– Kimball
Mar 25 at 23:30
1
$begingroup$
"nobody ever sees it do so." - you made my day!
$endgroup$
– Wolfgang
Mar 26 at 9:26
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You asked for a heuristic answer.
There is an heuristic argument that infinitely many such partial sums should exist. Consider $P(k)$, an heuristic estimate of the probability that the partial sum of the first $k+1$ primes would be divisible by $p_k$. Now $$p_k sim k log k$$ and if only random chance were involved, $$P(k) approx frac1p_k sim frac1k log k$$
In that case, the expected number of primes with the property you want would be something like
$$int_2^infty frac1x log x,dx$$
and that integral diverges to infinity.
The reason it seems so rare is that the rate of divergence is like $log(log x)$ and while that function goes to infinity, "nobody ever sees it do so."
On the other hand, proving that there an infinite number of such values of $k$ (in the same sense that Euclid's argument proves there is no last prime) is probably quite difficult. And if the conjecture that there are an infinite number of such values of $k$ turned out to be false, proving that some particular $k$ is the last one with this property would seem to be even harder.
edited Mar 25 at 22:43
Peter Taylor
1536 bronze badges
answered Mar 25 at 16:42
Mark FischlerMark Fischler
1,0193 silver badges13 bronze badges
$endgroup$
You asked for a heuristic answer.
There is an heuristic argument that infinitely many such partial sums should exist. Consider $P(k)$, an heuristic estimate of the probability that the partial sum of the first $k+1$ primes would be divisible by $p_k$. Now $$p_k sim k log k$$ and if only random chance were involved, $$P(k) approx frac1p_k sim frac1k log k$$
In that case, the expected number of primes with the property you want would be something like
$$int_2^infty frac1x log x,dx$$
and that integral diverges to infinity.
The reason it seems so rare is that the rate of divergence is like $log(log x)$ and while that function goes to infinity, "nobody ever sees it do so."
On the other hand, proving that there an infinite number of such values of $k$ (in the same sense that Euclid's argument proves there is no last prime) is probably quite difficult. And if the conjecture that there are an infinite number of such values of $k$ turned out to be false, proving that some particular $k$ is the last one with this property would seem to be even harder.
edited Mar 25 at 22:43
Peter Taylor
1536 bronze badges
answered Mar 25 at 16:42
Mark FischlerMark Fischler
1,0193 silver badges13 bronze badges
edited Mar 25 at 22:43
Peter Taylor
1536 bronze badges
edited Mar 25 at 22:43
Peter Taylor
1536 bronze badges
edited Mar 25 at 22:43
Peter Taylor
1536 bronze badges
1536 bronze badges
answered Mar 25 at 16:42
Mark FischlerMark Fischler
1,0193 silver badges13 bronze badges
answered Mar 25 at 16:42
Mark FischlerMark Fischler
1,0193 silver badges13 bronze badges
answered Mar 25 at 16:42
Mark FischlerMark Fischler
1,0193 silver badges13 bronze badges
1,0193 silver badges13 bronze badges
2
$begingroup$
Note this answer is essentially the same as David Speyer's in the question linked to in the comment by @Alex M. above.
$endgroup$
– Kimball
Mar 25 at 23:30
1
$begingroup$
"nobody ever sees it do so." - you made my day!
$endgroup$
– Wolfgang
Mar 26 at 9:26
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Note this answer is essentially the same as David Speyer's in the question linked to in the comment by @Alex M. above.
$endgroup$
– Kimball
Mar 25 at 23:30
1
$begingroup$
"nobody ever sees it do so." - you made my day!
$endgroup$
– Wolfgang
Mar 26 at 9:26
2
2
$begingroup$
Note this answer is essentially the same as David Speyer's in the question linked to in the comment by @Alex M. above.
$endgroup$
– Kimball
Mar 25 at 23:30
$begingroup$
Note this answer is essentially the same as David Speyer's in the question linked to in the comment by @Alex M. above.
$endgroup$
– Kimball
Mar 25 at 23:30
1
1
$begingroup$
"nobody ever sees it do so." - you made my day!
$endgroup$
– Wolfgang
Mar 26 at 9:26
$begingroup$
"nobody ever sees it do so." - you made my day!
$endgroup$
– Wolfgang
Mar 26 at 9:26
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f326315%2fpartial-sums-of-primes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
6
$begingroup$
Strongly related: mathoverflow.net/questions/120511/…. Also crossposted on MSE: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3161810/23571113 (please don't do this anymore).
$endgroup$
– Alex M.
Mar 25 at 22:31
3
$begingroup$
Seven edits in the last 12 hours.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 26 at 21:11
2
$begingroup$
Now up to Version 13.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 27 at 21:35
3
$begingroup$
I find these frequent edits go against the purpose of this forum. If you want to record frequent observations on a daily basis (whether they are significant or not), start a blog. You have asked a main question and gotten a reasonable answer; now move on. The numerology associated with the problem does not belong here. Next week, if you find a third prime satisfying the relations, you can report that here. Gerhard "Know When To Fold 'Em" Paseman, 2019.03.28.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
Mar 28 at 18:54
2
$begingroup$
Version 16. Please, homunc, give it a rest.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Mar 28 at 21:30