06/29/2012, 10:09 PM
i awaited the second post ( of james ) ... but it did not come.
in fact i wonder what and if anyone would reply.
i think there are no replies because james confused ppl , maybe including himself.
in fact , i dont agree.
james uses the same P_i everywhere , but the factorization of a sum has other prime factors than the product of prime factors.
for instance , take p and q odd primes and J(n) the function james proposes then J(p^2 * q) = 2*p + q.
but the primefactors of 2*p + q are not easily expressed and certainly not a multiple of p or q.
i then see no way to extend this idea to something as "complicated " as number theory and/or tetration ...
regards
tommy1729
in fact i wonder what and if anyone would reply.
i think there are no replies because james confused ppl , maybe including himself.
in fact , i dont agree.
james uses the same P_i everywhere , but the factorization of a sum has other prime factors than the product of prime factors.
for instance , take p and q odd primes and J(n) the function james proposes then J(p^2 * q) = 2*p + q.
but the primefactors of 2*p + q are not easily expressed and certainly not a multiple of p or q.
i then see no way to extend this idea to something as "complicated " as number theory and/or tetration ...
regards
tommy1729
