QuoteOriginally posted by: GrenvilleCrollQuoteOriginally posted by: outrunQuoteOriginally posted by: GrenvilleCrollI recently proved explicitly that the sequence of prime numbers is not periodic. Does that make me a bona fide research mathematician? you proved that every next prime number is larger than the previous one? Sounds indeed interesting!Your proof sounds more complex than mine. I win thanks to occam's razor and your lack of prior publication!Awesome, innit!It would be interesting to see your proof of the absence of periodicity for all periods due to the fact that every prime is bigger than the previous one.I took a very brief look at the paper, and noticed 2 things:I did not read enough to know what the paper is about, but there is a problem with your definition of a periodic finite binary string (page 3, line 12). According to the definition every finite string is periodic: Just take any P >= n.On page 8, you call the statement that the sequence of prime number is not periodic a "corollary". Corollary means that it follows from an already established result, but you don't say what your (trivial) statement follows from. You could mention the very slightly less trivial statement that the characteristic function of the prime numbers is not eventually periodic.