Quick problem for anon

Prove every even integer greater than 2 can be written as the sum of two primes.

Go fuck yourself.

>>1
3

Find the next Mersenne Prime first

Even better, prove that every prime greater than 2 can be written as the sum of two even integers.

Show that every integer greater than 1 can be written as the sum of two other integers.

Prove that every even prime is half of its square

PROVE THAT ANY NUMBER IS EQUAQL TO ITSELF

Stop asking us to do your homework, Goldbach

hey,  i'm having a similar problem with primes!

in my class i'm trying to find a proof for the function:

ζ(s) = 1/1^s + 1/2^s + 1/3^s + 1/4^s + ...1/n^s

and why it covers the distribution of the primes.

thanks anon - you're a lifesaver!

>>12-
Google before even trying to solve.
I lost 10 or 15 minutes because of this troll :(

>>11
You'd never heard of one of the most famous open problems in mathematics and you thought you could help someone on /sci/? That's special.

me no good at maths mathss hurted mah head

>> I think it has to be every number greater than 4, because 3 is 1+2, and 1 is not technically prime.

>>14
That would be greater than 3 then, wouldn't it? Fucking moron.

how is 1 not a prime?
a prime is any number only divisable by itself and 1, how does 1 not fit this?

>>16
it is if you define a prime number that way.  guess that means that's not the correct definition of a prime number.

>>3
When the bloody hell did 3 become an EVEN integer?

>>1
The correct statement should be every even integer greater than 4 (EXCLUSIVE greater than) can be written as the sum of two primes greater than or equal to three.

>>19
The two statements are equivalent.

>>15 I forgot an "or equal to," and I assure you it was a forgot not a failure to understand, no need to get so offensive.

>>20
They would be if not for the fact that 2 is prime and and the original statement includes 4, faggot.

>>22
Oh my god you're stupid.
Suppose the first statement is true. Then every even integer greater than 4 (EXCLUSIVE greater than) can be written as the sum of two primes. Suppose one of these primes is 2. Then the other prime must also be even, meaning it must also be 2, meaning the sum is 2+2 = 4. Obviously 4 isn't greater than 4, so we conclude that neither of the primes in the sum is 2. Thus every even number greater than 4 (EXCLUSIVE greater than) can be written as the sum of two primes greater than or equal to 3, as every prime other than 2 is greater than or equal to 3.

Suppose the second statement is true. We can break the OP's statement into two parts. First, 4 can be written as a sum of two primes, specifically 2+2. Second, any even integer greater than 4 can be written as a sum of two primes by the assumption that the second statement is true. Thus the OP's statement is true.

Statement 1 <=> Statement 2.

gb2/middleschool/.

>>22
In England, that is what they call cigarettes.  They call cigars "the brown man's cock".  "Cheers, I'm off for a taste of the brown man's cock."

>>23
Learn to read, faggot. The first statement was

Prove every even integer greater than 2 can be written as the sum of two primes.
The second statement was

>The correct statement should be every even integer greater than 4 (EXCLUSIVE greater than) can be written as the sum of two primes greater than or equal to three.
And >>20's claim was

The two statements are equivalent.
Which is fucking bullshit.

If the first statement is true, the second is as well, but that does not make the statements equivalent. Kindly learn the fucking difference between equivalence and implication.

>>25
M-M-M-M-M-M-Mega Pwnage!

>>25
Equivalence is when A implies B and B implies A. Maybe you should take fucking logic 101 before you open your mouth.

>>25
PS: Since it's obvious you didn't manage to read my entire post - I'm sure 2 whole paragraphs is tough for you - I didn't just show 1st => 2nd, I showed 1st => 2nd and 2nd => 1st. You might want to try reading it again; maybe you'll have more luck this time.

Just thought I'd get that out of the way so you don't have to make a complete ass of yourself for a third time.

>>27-28
Equivalence is indeed A IMP B and B IMP A, but your post in no way showed that B IMP A. The fact that A happens to be true if B is true does not mean B by itself implies A.
Take your own fucking advice and gb2 logic 101.

>>29
"The fact that A happens to be true if B is true"

That is the definition of implies, you nitwit. "B implies A" MEANS "A is true if B is true".

>>30
The fact that A is true if B is does not follow from B itself. GTFO.

A implies B is defined as ( ~A V B )

>>31
The fact that Zorn's Lemma is true if the Axiom of Choice is true does not follow from Zorn's Lemma itself. I guess they aren't equivalent!

The Riemann hypothesis is true does not follow from "the Riemann zeta function has non-trivial zeros only on the line 0.5 + it" alone, so those two aren't equivalent!

Implication states that, in some formal system, by assuming B we can prove A. In this case, the formal system most apt is the natural numbers, which means we have the Peano axioms. Can you point to the part of my proof of equivalence that can't be shown from the Peano axioms? Hint: The answer is no, and you should kill yourself out of shame.

You're the stupidest person on this board. Your understanding of logic makes RedCream look like Gödel by comparison.

We could go in circles about the exact definition of implication, and which definition is most appropriate here, for weeks. Could be fun, actually.

>>33
Logical implication != material implication. Lurk the fuck moar.

>>33
Oops, second "Zorn's Lemma" should read "Axiom of Choice". Forgot how I was making fun of you mid-sentence.

>>32
Yes.

>>35
Right, and the logical biconditional is identical to the material biconditional. In other words, if A => B and B => A (logical implications), then A <=> B (logical biconditional), so A <-> (material biconditional). I don't have to prove that A->B and B->A (material implication), though it is certainly possible to do so.

>>7
hehe...I got it.