OK. Thx.jaap wrote:Tommy137 was pointing out exactly that  the inequalities that DiogoRegateiro was using while searching for a set of 5 primes were invalid. By using the counterexample of 5 consecutive primes (consecutive so that they are approximately the same size) he showed that four of them would certainly be larger than N/2. Hence the fourth of Diogo's inequalities does not hold in general. Also, it seems to me that N was merely some arbitrary upper bound or search limit for the answer that Diogo was using.
Problem 060
Forum rules
As your posts will be visible to the general public you
are requested to be thoughtful in not posting anything
that might explicitly give away how to solve a particular problem.
This forum is NOT meant to discuss solution methods for a problem.
See also the topics:
Don't post any spoilers
Comments, questions and clarifications about PE problems.
As your posts will be visible to the general public you
are requested to be thoughtful in not posting anything
that might explicitly give away how to solve a particular problem.
This forum is NOT meant to discuss solution methods for a problem.
In particular don't post any code fragments or results.
Don't start begging others to give partial answers to problems
Don't ask for hints how to solve a problem
Don't start a new topic for a problem if there already exists one
Don't start begging others to give partial answers to problems
Don't ask for hints how to solve a problem
Don't start a new topic for a problem if there already exists one
See also the topics:
Don't post any spoilers
Comments, questions and clarifications about PE problems.
Re: Problem #60

 Posts: 1
 Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:44 pm
Re: Problem 060
I just want to point out that the given solution of four primes [3, 7, 109, 673] is actually wrong. The following sequence meets the criteria and has a lower sum [7, 9, 19, 433].
Nonetheless, using the same algorithm I was able to get the correct answer for five primes.
Nonetheless, using the same algorithm I was able to get the correct answer for five primes.
Re: Problem 060
9 is not primeStephanKoehler wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:56 pm I just want to point out that the given solution of four primes [3, 7, 109, 673] is actually wrong. The following sequence meets the criteria and has a lower sum [7, 9, 19, 433].
Nonetheless, using the same algorithm I was able to get the correct answer for five primes.