A meeting area where members can relax, chill out and talk about anything non magical.
Moderators: nickj, Lady of Mystery, Mandrake, bananafish, support
by bob12356 » Sep 14th, '11, 13:19
2 x 3 x 5 x 7 x 11 x 13 x 17 + 1 = 510511 = 19 x 97 x 277
-
bob12356
- New User
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sep 14th, '11, 13:14
by A J Irving » Sep 15th, '11, 11:42
bob12356 wrote:2 x 3 x 5 x 7 x 11 x 13 x 17 + 1 = 510511 = 19 x 97 x 277
Well, this is embarrassing...
-
A J Irving
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 713
- Joined: Jun 18th, '09, 11:07
by Tomo » Sep 15th, '11, 11:51
73 is the best number...
-

Tomo
- Veteran Member
-
- Posts: 9866
- Joined: May 4th, '05, 23:46
- Location: Darkest Cheshire (forty-bloody-six going on six)
-
by Ste Porterfield » Sep 15th, '11, 11:57
I came for the jokes and was confused by the maths...

-
Ste Porterfield
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 692
- Joined: Aug 16th, '11, 13:26
by Mr_Grue » Sep 16th, '11, 08:06
A J Irving wrote:bob12356 wrote:2 x 3 x 5 x 7 x 11 x 13 x 17 + 1 = 510511 = 19 x 97 x 277
Well, this is embarrassing...
Yup.
...
Ah! This sheds some light.
http://primes.utm.edu/notes/proofs/infi ... clids.htmlSo you don't necessarily generate a new prime, you may instead generate a number (P) that is divisible by a prime that wasn't in the list of primes used to generate P.
Simon Scott
If the spectator doesn't engage in the effect,
then the only thing left is the method.
tiny.cc/Grue
-

Mr_Grue
- Elite Member
-
- Posts: 2689
- Joined: Jan 5th, '07, 15:53
- Location: London, UK (38:AH)
-
Return to The Dove's Head
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests