At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
This sounds like a very hard problem.
I dont know..... But I think it will not be surely prime.
If not, we just need a counterexample.
I doubt it is all primes as well.
remainder is gonna be one
Looks like an Euclid proof of the infinite number of prime numbers.
Euclid never said there was an infinity of primes (didn't believe in infinity)
Euclid said that you could always construct another one out of a supposedly complete list.
that dosent make sense
There are infinitely many primes, as demonstrated by Euclid around 300 BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number
True but he never said anything about infinity (Greeks weren't too keen on that idea)
You deepened into the history. But I spoke about the method.
The method, I agree, is very like the question.....
P_n = p1p2p3....+1
The "infinitely many" part got added later.....
Personally, I like "you can always get another one" better....
"Construct another one"
do you mean induction
No, it is an explicit construction...
You give me a list of primes and say "That's all there are" And I give you another one not in the list...