|
COMMENT
|
Cox and van der Poorten claim to show that 5, 11, 13, 17, ... are not members of this sequence. - Charles R Greathouse IV, Jul 02 2007
|
|
REFERENCES
|
C. D. Cox and A. J. van der Poorten, "On a sequence of prime numbers", Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society 8 (1968), pp. 571-574. [Note that the argument used here is incorrect, as pointed out by Naur.]
R. K. Guy and R. Nowakowski, Discovering primes with Euclid, Delta (Waukesha), Vol. 5, pp. 49-63, 1975.
T. Naur, Mullin's sequence of primes is not monotonic, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 90 (1984), 43-44.
N. J. A. Sloane, A Handbook of Integer Sequences, Academic Press, 1973 (includes this sequence).
N. J. A. Sloane and Simon Plouffe, The Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, Academic Press, 1995 (includes this sequence).
S. S. Wagstaff, Jr., Computing Euclid's primes, Bull. Institute Combin. Applications, 8 (1993), 23-32.
|