Sexy prime quadruplets

Salah

Salah

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2020
Messages
18
On Wikipedia, the Set of Sexy prime quadruplets={(5,11,17,23), (11,17,23,29), (41,47,53,59), (61,67,73,79), (251,257,263,269), (601,607,613,619), (641,647,653,659),......}.

The question is:
Is it right to consider the first three members of the Set as Sexy prime quadruplets?

I.e: {(5,11,17,23), (11,17,23,29), (41,47,53,59)}
Since after 5 there's 7, after 11 there's 13, after 41 there's 43.

I hope my point of view is clear.

So I consider the first member of the Set as (61,67,73,79).

I need your answer. It's critical to me in my philosophical research.

Thanks in advance.
 
I found that 71 is the next prime to 67. So, (61,67,73,79) is not a Sexy prime quadruplet. We may consider it as quasi-sexy prime quadruplet.

Thus, the first Sexy prime quadruplet is (251, 257, 263, 269).
 
I'd never heard the term, but you are evidently referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_prime#Sexy_prime_quadruplets

That defines "sexy primes" as

Sexy primes are prime numbers that differ from each other by 6. For example, the numbers 5 and 11 are both sexy primes, because 11 − 5 = 6.​
​
The term "sexy prime" is a pun stemming from the Latin word for six: sex.​

and defines a "sexy prime quadruplet" as

Sexy prime quadruplets (p, p+6, p+12, p+18) ...​

where all four numbers are primes. Clearly all the examples fit that definition.

You appear to be misinterpreting the definition, as if there were a requirement that there be no intervening prime. Since that is not what they said, and since their examples confirm that this is what they mean, your conclusion is wrong.

You must follow the correct definition when you do mathematics. If you change a definition, you are not talking about the same thing.
 
Salah said:
So I consider the first member of the Set as (61,67,73,79).

I need your answer.
Click to expand...


Salah, not only did Dr.Peterson state the facts, but (61, 67, 73, 79) according to
your alleged idea does not count, because the prime number 71 falls between
67 and 73.
 
Lookagain, thank you for your interest. I have noticed what you have already said, in a preceding reply post. So, (61, 67, 73, 79) is not a Sexy prime quadruplet.

I think to make the definition more accurate we should add:
Four consecutive primes, in the following manner: (p, p+6, p+12, p+18).
 
Salah said:
Lookagain, thank you for your interest. I have noticed what you have already said, in a preceding reply post. So, (61, 67, 73, 79) is not a Sexy prime quadruplet.

I think to make the definition more accurate we should add:
Four consecutive primes, in the following manner: (p, p+6, p+12, p+18).
Click to expand...
No, you are changing the definition, not making it "more accurate"! If you want to define a new term, using this definition, you may; but you can't tell others, who have decided to use a term with a particular meaning, that their definition is wrong, any more than I can insist that you were given the wrong name, and should be "more accurately" called "Lasah". If your parents gave you that name, who am I to call them wrong?

Words are used for communication, so we must accept definitions we are given, if we want to understand and be understood.
 
Dr.Peterson, thank you for your interest. You are absolutely right.

I can't make the right definition more accurate, or else it will be another definition for another matter.

I speak from Philosophical point of view. What comes first to the mind is:

Four consecutive primes.

So, what should be considered as Sexy prime quadruplets should be consecutive.

So, philosophically, we should classify the Sexy primes into:

1- Sexy primes.
2- Quasi-sexy primes.
3- pseudo-sexy primes.

I have a concern in Philosophy of Numbers, and Philosophy of Math.
 
Salah said:
I speak from Philosophical point of view. What comes first to the mind is:

Four consecutive primes.

So, what should be considered as Sexy prime quadruplets should be consecutive.

So, philosophically, we should classify the Sexy primes into:

1- Sexy primes.
2- Quasi-sexy primes.
3- pseudo-sexy primes.

I have a concern in Philosophy of Numbers, and Philosophy of Math.
Click to expand...

Please justify the word "should". It appears to be "whatever first comes to your mind". What kind of philosophy is that?
 
Dr.Peterson, thank you for your interest.

When I, as any man, any human, when I speak of Numbers in specific relation, as (p, p+6, p+12, p+18) what comes first to my mind is that these numbers are consecutive.

So, the definition Philosophically is inaccurate.

If I want to make it nonconsecutive i.e: 67, (71), 73 I should clarify in the definition.

Philosophy is a higher Logic, a higher Maths.
So, the Philosopher has authority on the Mathimatation.

When the Mathimatation wants to Conceptualise a Notice, he should offer it on the Philosopher.

Of course the Philosophers I mean are like Pythagoras, namely experts in both; Math and Philosophy.
 
You are reading into the definition. This is NOT logical. The definition never said the primes must be consecutive. Why would you think otherwise?
 
Jomo, thank you.
This is wrong in the Logic of the Mathimatation who choosed the term and conceptualised the mathimatical notice as a definition.

He should mention in the definition:
Don't take in account the consecutivity, since consecutivity is the logical and normal Idea come to mind.

I hope my point of view is now very clear.
 
Salah, you made your point very clear but I respectfully disagree with it. I did not study very much philosophy (outside of all my math courses) but I can't believe that philosophers read things that are not there.
 
Jomo, I mean by the Philosopher that who has natural readiness to carry out, manipulate, practice Dialectic. then he studied academically Logic, Maths, Linguistics and Dialectic.

This man (Man of Philosophy) has a higher ability to Conceptualise and Terminologise in any branch of Science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top