Yes, Richard and Ken,
there is mistake -
on my side,
my "d" is larger than yours...
Zak

--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Davis" <kraden@y...> wrote:
> This is posted on behalf of
> richyfortythree
> cheers
> Ken
> > By my calculation the smallest d for p=11 is
> > 1536160080. Have I
> > made a
> > mistake?
>
> 1536160080 is also what I get. (Same mistake maybe?)
>
> Cheers
>
> richyfourtythree
>
>
> --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "mad37wriggle"
> <fitzhughrichard@h...> wrote:
> >
> > By my calculation the smallest d for p=11 is 1536160080. Have I
> made a
> > mistake?
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> > --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Zak Seidov" <seidovzf@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > This is copy of my post
> > > (sorry for those reading this twice):
> > >
> > > For p=11,
> > > minimal d = 4911773580 (OEIS A088430),
> > > and AP contains maximal number, 11, primes.
> > >
> > > For p=13, d should be a factor of 2310.
> > > Who first find it (and then try 17,19,...)?
> > > Zak
> > >
> > >
> > > BTW I guess that found d is indeed minimal not unique-
> > > there is no reason of absense of other larger d's.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 28 Sep 2003, Russell E. Rierson wrote
> > > (http://www.mathforum.org/discuss/sci.math/m/133406/540774):
> > > >Twin primes are prime numbers such as 5 and 7, 11 and 13, 17
and
> 19,
> > > >etc. These twins are only one unit apart.
> > > >
> > > >There are strings of prime numbers that are n-units apart:
> > > >
> > > >3, 5, 7, [3 prime numbers, 2 units apart]
> > > >
> > > >5, 11, 17, 23, 29, [5, 6 units]
> > > >
> > > >7, 157, 307, 457, 607, 757, 907, [7, 150 units]
> > > >
> > > >11... ? ...? ...? ...
> > > >
> > > >The question becomes: For all odd prime numbers P, are there P
> > > number of
> > > >primes that are the same numerical[equal] distance apart?