Listerine Whitening Gums Swollen

numbers Insac ...

.. one of my conjecture is Goldbach .

fascinates me because so seemingly simple a proposition resists all attempts to prove for 250 years.

Unfortunately I have a mathematical background sufficient to deal "directly" to this problem: I have dabbled in the past, however, with attempts "naïve" to come to some conclusion .. Today I found one of these "semi" and attach to this entry ... who knows someone who does not know it to good use (or more likely to report that is well known). Defining number of

Insac:

Insac (0) = 3
any number of Insac is equal to three times as many Insac minus 2 and 4. So

:
Insac (0)
Insac = 3 (1) = 3 * Insac (0) - 4 = 5
Insac (2) = 3 * Insac (0) - 2 = 7
Insac (3) = 3 * Insac (1) - 4 = 11
Insac (4) = 3 * Insac (1) - 2 = 13
Insac (5) = 3 * Insac (2) - 4 = 17
Insac (6) = 3 * Insac (2) - 2 = 19
. ..
Insac (9) = 3 * Insac (4) - 4 = 35
...

Insac 3,5,7,11,13,17,19,29,31,35,37,47,49,53,55,83,85,89,91,101,103 ,...} = {

The conjecture is that of Insac vvalga for all numbers Insac Goldbach's conjecture.

So what?

:-) Well, first the density Insac numbers is much smaller than that of prime numbers .. then another feature is that the numbers of Insac always go in pairs (primes often have this characteristic of "twin primes" but do not know if infinitely).

As I have generated?
I wanted to see if there were some boundary conditions under which the Goldbach conjecture was necessarily true for an infinite set of integers, for example, I know that in a number and its double there is always a prime number. This property would be enough? (No) And if I said just that in a number and there are at least triple its number 2 of that series?

Insac numbers come from this doubt. It is interesting
note that the number of differences between consecutive numbers Insac is very smooth and seems to have properties that appear to facilitate the proof of the conjecture of Insac for these numbers.

differences Insac = {2, 2, 4, 2,4,2, 10, 2,4,2,10,2,4,2, 28, 2,4,2,10,2,4,2, 28,2,4,2,10,2,4,2 ...}

The strange feature of the sequence of differences (in addition to the regular continuous repetition) is that each number x it is possible to find a subset of the direct predecessors has to sum the number of departure minus 2, and this seems a good starting point x an inductive proof.

Concluding remarks:
a - there 'no value in this conjecture, if not the hope that it will give some clue as to why the Goldbach conjecture is true on the first
b - and 'scientifically proven that each of us can generate an infinite number of Goldbach's conjecture similar to the one, then the value of these conjecture and 'zero :-)
c - I did a self test to verify the conjecture Insac and so far I have not found examples against
d - are (almost) managed to resist the temptation to make jokes like "I found a beautiful demonstration, but I can not keep her in this form .. " :-)