STATUS
proposed
approved
The OEIS is supported by the many generous donors to the OEIS Foundation.
proposed
approved
editing
proposed
Up to and including the 6th term, there is no constraint other than not using a term more than once, since it is impossible to have more than 12 primes as pairwise sums of 6 numbers. So one would first try to use the lexicographically smallest possible choice a(1..6) =?= (1, 2, ..., 6). But then one would have only 7 pairs (i,j) such that a(i) + a(j) is prime, 1 <= i < j <= 6. So one would need 12 - 7 = 5 more primes in {1, 2, ..., 6} + a(7), which is impossible. One can check that even a(1..5) =?= (1,...,5) does not allow one to find a(6) and a(7) in order to have 12 prime sums a(i) + a(j), 1 <= i < j <= 7. Nor is it possible to find a solution with a(5) equal to 6 or 7 or 8. One finds that a(5) = 9, and a(6) = 10, are the smallest possible choices for which a(7) can be found as to satisfy the requirement. In that case, a(7) = 27 is the smallest possible solution, which yields the 12 prime sums 1+2, 2+3, 1+4, 3+4, 2+9, 4+9, 1+10, 3+10, 9+10, 2+27, 4+27, 10+27.
approved
editing
reviewed
approved
proposed
reviewed
editing
proposed
That is, there are twelve 12 primes, counted with multiplicity, among the 21 pairwise sums of any 7 consecutive terms.
proposed
editing
editing
proposed
Conjectured to be a permutation of the positive integers. See A329572 for the "nonnegative" variant: (same definition but with n >= 0 and a(0) terms >= 0, ), leading to a quite different sequence.
proposed
editing
editing
proposed