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.