pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU, costllo@cs.stanford.edu (11/30/90)
Does anyone know where Dr. Basil Fawlty published the following theorem? (published circa late 1970's ?) Fawlty Towers Theorem: For non-empty towers of 2, 2^2^2...^2 + 1 is prime and 2^2^2...^2 + 3 is prime. Thus there are an infinite number of pairs of primes. We think the proof is too large to post to the net, but we'd like a reference. Tom Costello and Dan Pehoushek Replies to: costllo@cs.stanford.edu pehoushek@cs.stanford.edu
bs@faron.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov30.013039.13955@Neon.Stanford.EDU> pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU, costllo@cs.stanford.edu writes:
:
:Does anyone know where Dr. Basil Fawlty published the following theorem?
:(published circa late 1970's ?)
:
:Fawlty Towers Theorem:
:
:For non-empty towers of 2,
:2^2^2...^2 + 1 is prime and
:2^2^2...^2 + 3 is prime.
:
:Thus there are an infinite number of pairs of primes.
Who the hell is Basil Fawlty? Is this some kind of joke? I've never heard
of this guy. Is it another crackpot?
This 'theorem' is trivially false: F16 = 2^2^2^2^2 + 1 has the factor
825753601.
:
:
:We think the proof is too large to post to the net, but
:we'd like a reference.
--
Bob Silverman
#include <std.disclaimer>
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"rodmur@ecst.csuchico.edu (Dale A. Harris) (12/01/90)
In article <1990Nov30.013039.13955@Neon.Stanford.EDU> pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU, costllo@cs.stanford.edu writes: > >Does anyone know where Dr. Basil Fawlty published the following theorem? >(published circa late 1970's ?) > >Fawlty Towers Theorem: > >For non-empty towers of 2, >2^2^2...^2 + 1 is prime and >2^2^2...^2 + 3 is prime. > >Thus there are an infinite number of pairs of primes. > > >We think the proof is too large to post to the net, but >we'd like a reference. > >Tom Costello and Dan Pehoushek >Replies to: costllo@cs.stanford.edu pehoushek@cs.stanford.edu Actually, I find this rather humorous, but still I think it would be better posted to rec.arts.tv.uk. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dale A. Harris Chaotically Yours, rodmur@ecst.csuchico.edu __ __ _ , {Internet} / ) / ) ' ) / / / /--/ /--/ /__/ o / ( o / ( o = Let A be a subset of U. A = A. "The double complement of A, is like getting no complement at all", S. Moskowitz