chains of prime twin pairs

[Neil Fernandez]

In message <qpsw8WAgTWt8EwmS at borve.demon.co.uk>, Neil Fernandez
<primeness at borve.demon.co.uk> writes
>In message <3CB51909.9A3A2526 at nk.ca>, Don Reble <djr at nk.ca> writes
>>>>3 5 211049 253679 41887255409
[...]
>>A069179
[...]
>"4,6,211050,253680,41887255410,73768891456260"
>
>Yikes, a sixth term! :-)
>
>If the definition is changed so that each term relates to the least pair
>that yields a chain of exactly length n, it can be conjectured that the
>sequence is strictly increasing. My guess would be that that conjecture
>is false. But a proof that it were true might say something of a lot of
>interest about the primes...

Essentially the same conjecture can of course be made using the current
definition, in which case if it is false there will be some n for which
the least pair yielding a chain of exactly length n does not appear in
the sequence.

Neil
-- 
Neil Fernandez