
Arturo O. answered 09/14/18
Experienced Physics Teacher for Physics Tutoring

Edwin R.
asked 09/14/18Arturo O. answered 09/14/18
Experienced Physics Teacher for Physics Tutoring
Michael V. answered 09/14/18
Instructor of the Year and Certified Master Training Specialist
Mark M.
09/14/18
Arturo O.
09/14/18
Jordi A.
Since 2 & 3 are the one and only possible case of a pair of prime numbers which are also consecutive numbers, it turns out that "any consecutive prime numbers" is equivalent to "2 and 3", because there is no other case of consecutive prime numbers. In other words, any other pair of prime numbers different than 2 and 3 will never be consecutive because all prime numbers, with the exception of 2, are odd, and two odd numbers can never be consecutive, as numbers alternate between even and odd as you count them. For this reason, 2+3=5 is not only an example that meets the condition, but also an example that meets the condition in any possible case (which happens to be only one case, 2 and 3), and therefore serves as a proof for the statement.03/25/22
Jordi A.
For the reasons above, if you interpret consecutive as consecutive among the whole set of integer numbers, and not consecutive among the set of prime numbers, the statement is TRUE.03/25/22
Get a free answer to a quick problem.
Most questions answered within 4 hours.
Choose an expert and meet online. No packages or subscriptions, pay only for the time you need.
Arturo O.
09/14/18