Subject: Re: [OT: This is not the thread you're looking for. You can go about your business. Move along, move along.] From: Michael Amling Newsgroups: sci.crypt Mark Wooding wrote: > Gregory G Rose wrote: > >>In article <3F204F7C.75A3177A@t-online.de>, >>Mok-Kong Shen wrote: >> >>>This just shows your cowardity. >> >>That's "cowardiceness". > > > Surely `cowardness', or `cowardliness': standard mathmo noun > construction. > > For example we might start by defining that a natural number is a > k-coward, or k-cowardly if there is no prime p such that |n - p| < k, or > some such twaddle. Then, were we so inclined, we could discuss theorems > about k-cowardness, or k-cowardliness, though surely not k-cowardice; > and we might investigate exactly how cowardly numbers of a certain size > can become. Is there, f'rinstance, an n which is (n/2)-cowardly? If so, that would almost contradict Goldbach's strong conjecture. An even (n/2+1)-coward would be an even number which is not the sum of two primes.