## primes and John Harrison

Expand Messages
• Recently I saw a movie from A&E called Longitude . It is the story of John Harrison. John Harrison invented the first clock that was accurate within a second
Message 1 of 7 , Jul 7, 2003
• 0 Attachment
Recently I saw a movie from A&E called "Longitude". It is the story
of John Harrison.

John Harrison invented the first clock that was accurate within a
second and his clock was made completely of wood. The he invented a
clock that could maintain that accuracy despite any jarring that may
encounter. Then he used this clock to solve a problem that had been
baffling people for years, how to determine longitude at sea. It
depended on his clocks being able to keep accurate time across long
voyages despite severe weather and ocean swells.

However, John Harrison was not an astronomer. Nor was he a
navigator. He was a carpenter. So many discounted his work. They
thought "How can this non astronomer figure out how to find longitude
at sea."

It wasn't until John was in his eighties that people finally
recognized that John had found the answer. I wonder if I will have
to wait until I am in my eighties before anyone will recognize that I
have found the formula for all prime numbers.

I find many paralels between my life and the life of John Harrison.
I'm not a mathemetician. You wonder how I can figure out primes
without having the extensive mathematics background that you all have.

John was expected to build multiple clocks, test all of them, and
journey multiple times to the West Indies to prove his theories
despite the fact that John only had a carpenter's income to fund all
this work. You expect me to come up with a large prime number
despite the fact that my ancient computer can't handle any numbers,
let alone prime numbers, larger than 12 digits.

Very well, if you insist, I'm working on a way to come up with large
prime numbers, despite my computers limitations, using my formula.
It may take time and even when I do come up with the number, how do I
send it to you. Should I type out every digit in an e-mail?

like those astronomers that stood in John Harrison's way and stood in
the way of science.
• ... Hash: SHA1 ... Quite simple, PUBLISH IT. That s how it s been done for centuries. If your work is as good as you claim, you re surely not going the way of
Message 2 of 7 , Jul 7, 2003
• 0 Attachment
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Monday 07 July 2003 06:45, bejjinks wrote:
> Recently I saw a movie from A&E called "Longitude". It is the story
> of John Harrison.
>
> John Harrison invented the first clock that was accurate within a
> second and his clock was made completely of wood. The he invented a
> clock that could maintain that accuracy despite any jarring that may
> encounter. Then he used this clock to solve a problem that had been
> baffling people for years, how to determine longitude at sea. It
> depended on his clocks being able to keep accurate time across long
> voyages despite severe weather and ocean swells.
>
> However, John Harrison was not an astronomer. Nor was he a
> navigator. He was a carpenter. So many discounted his work. They
> thought "How can this non astronomer figure out how to find longitude
> at sea."
>
> It wasn't until John was in his eighties that people finally
> recognized that John had found the answer. I wonder if I will have
> to wait until I am in my eighties before anyone will recognize that I
> have found the formula for all prime numbers.

Quite simple, PUBLISH IT. That's how it's been done for centuries. If your
work is as good as you claim, you're surely not going the way of John
Harrison. Further, mathematics is unique in the sense that, if you display
your formula, prove that it works and rigorously bound its runtime
complexity, there can be no discussion, as it's been _demonstrated_.

> I find many paralels between my life and the life of John Harrison.
> I'm not a mathemetician. You wonder how I can figure out primes
> without having the extensive mathematics background that you all have.
>
> John was expected to build multiple clocks, test all of them, and
> journey multiple times to the West Indies to prove his theories
> despite the fact that John only had a carpenter's income to fund all
> this work. You expect me to come up with a large prime number
> despite the fact that my ancient computer can't handle any numbers,
> let alone prime numbers, larger than 12 digits.

Any modern C compiler today can handle 64-bit numbers (e.g. long long in gcc
or __int64 in MSVC), which is 19-digit numbers. Of course you could download,

> Very well, if you insist, I'm working on a way to come up with large
> prime numbers, despite my computers limitations, using my formula.
> It may take time and even when I do come up with the number, how do I
> send it to you. Should I type out every digit in an e-mail?
>
> Please, watch the movie "Longitude". Then ask yourself if you are
> like those astronomers that stood in John Harrison's way and stood in
> the way of science.

No, you're trying to go against the way it's been done for centuries:

Décio
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/CUqxce3VljctsGsRAoekAJ9Y81De7ZcaeYX4Iz5OhL8UPb6S2wCgidGi
Wg3Ve+wxaJOOLQy2pjm/FmA=
=0ILP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
• ... Hash: SHA1 ... Well, of course I didn t. I think everyone on this list has come across a Goldbach conjecture proof or a new formula for prime numbers at
Message 3 of 7 , Jul 7, 2003
• 0 Attachment
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Monday 07 July 2003 18:18, you wrote:
> --- Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho <decio@...>
> wrote:
>
> Decio didn't even watch the movie "Longitude". If he
> had, he'd know how silly his arguments were. Let me
> illustrate.

Well, of course I didn't. I think everyone on this list has come across a
Goldbach conjecture proof or a new formula for prime numbers at some time, so
they know how the drill goes. You're no different.

> > Quite simple, PUBLISH IT. That's how it's been done
> > for centuries. If your
> > work is as good as you claim, you're surely not
> > going the way of John
> > Harrison. Further, mathematics is unique in the
> > sense that, if you display
> > your formula, prove that it works and rigorously
> > bound its runtime
> > complexity, there can be no discussion, as it's been
> > _demonstrated_.
>
> Actually, John Harrison didn't publish his work. He
> took his work directly to a board of astronomers and
> demonstrated it for them. Then later, someone else
> published John Harrison's work. I'm looking for the
> opportunity to demonstrate as opposed to the
> opportunity to publish.

It appears that you don't, as witnessed by this previous post of yours:

>I'm not going to print my formula here for two reason:
>first, is security that someone doesn't snatch the
>credit away, and second, it's too complicated to print
>in an email message. However, I will go ahead and
>describe some details about the formula.

So I'm just assuming you want to keep it to yourself and still obtain funding
to do your work. Well, good luck.

> Also, the whole point of the movie was "how rigorously
> must proof be displayed." John Harrison rigorously
> displayed his work, complying with all the demands of
> the board of astronomers, and still, the board of
> astronomers kept saying that it wasn't enough.

Physics != mathematics.

As I said, publish your findings; if you demonstrate everything you claim,
there'll be no discussion as to your contribution.

> > Any modern C compiler today can handle 64-bit
> > numbers (e.g. long long in gcc
> > or __int64 in MSVC), which is 19-digit numbers. Of
> > say, gcc or PARI/GP and have access to numbers as
> > large as you please.
>
> As I have said, I don't have access to a modern C
> compiler, nor can I afford to purchase a computer that
> can handle a modern C compiler, let alone gcc or
> PARI/GP. I live just barely above the poverty line.

If you have an x86-compatible computer, 386 or up, you are eligible for
running gcc. I believe the same goes for PARI/GP.

> > No, you're trying to go against the way it's been
> > done for centuries:
> > PUBLISHING YOUR FINDINGS ON A PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL.
>
> Actually, Galileo, Copernicus, John Harrison,
> Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Isaac Newton and many
> others went against, "the way it's been done for
> centuries". Sometimes progress requires that we break

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly: are you trying to say Einstein
didn't publish his findings? Look up “Über einen die Erzeugung und
Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt,” Annalen
der Physik (1905) (on the photoelectric effect); "Über die von der
molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden
Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen,” in Annalen der Physik (1905) (on
Brownian motion); "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper," in Annalen der Physik
(1905) (on special relativity); “Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem
Energieinhalt abhängig?” in Annalen der Physik (1905) (on the equation
E=mc^2); these are the classical 1905 Einstein papers, surely there are tens
if not hundreds of others. He published a few books too.

As for Stephen Hawking, there are 40 papers listed on arXiv.org. Obviously
these are papers published on a peer-reviewed journal, not books (of which he
published a lot of them too).

As for Galileo, Copernicus and Isaac Newton, there were no scientific
societies in their time, the idea of publishing was usually restricted to
sending letters to friends.

I won't even bother to comment on John Harrison.

Décio
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/Ce9Ace3VljctsGsRAgB8AJ44XgDOBgf9q2Wl0P05ekM0fpIVuwCdGr3A
xUi1VuHaRMTr6tDh9pnDj10=
=p21j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
• ... Well, demonstrate how it works to us. We will be able to give an informed opinion about it. No one will steal it from you. Your message will prove that
Message 4 of 7 , Jul 7, 2003
• 0 Attachment
> > Actually, John Harrison didn't publish his work. He
> > took his work directly to a board of astronomers and
> > demonstrated it for them.

...
> >I'm not going to print my formula here for two reason:
> >first, is security that someone doesn't snatch the
> >credit away, and second, it's too complicated to print

Well, demonstrate how it works to us. We will be able to give an informed
opinion about it. No one will steal it from you. Your message will prove
that you came up with it by the date of the message.

> Actually, Galileo, Copernicus, John Harrison,
> > Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Isaac Newton and many
> > others went against, "the way it's been done for

It is always a good idea to compare yourself to Galileo, Copernicus,
etc. ;-) ;-)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Hi bejjinks, First, it seems we are not receiving your replies. Please note that on your replies you have to override the default value which replies only to
Message 5 of 7 , Jul 8, 2003
• 0 Attachment
Hi bejjinks,

First, it seems we are not receiving your replies. Please note that
on your replies you have to override the default value which replies
only to the individual and change it so it sends to the group.

Secondly, I would very much like to hear what you have to say. I
think that your theory can be explained even in text like this if you

I agree with Jud, that if you are truly on to something, then your
idea will be creditted to you and to no one else since it is
preserved in the Yahoo archives, dated, for all to see.

I see this forum as a place we can help each other out. Some people
are great for idea origination, others are accomplished theoriticians
and can work out the theory and possible proof behind an idea, and
others are great at fleshing the theory out in clever computer
algorithms.

So I look forward to hearing more from you on this, if you wish. For
instance, do I correctly recall you saying something to the effect
that finding larger primes took *less* time than finding smaller
primes? I would like to hear more about that one! And also, can your
idea be used to demonstrate a numbers primality, or is it strictly
for prime generation?

Mark

--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "bejjinks" <bejjinks@y...> wrote:
> Recently I saw a movie from A&E called "Longitude". It is the
story
> of John Harrison.
>
> John Harrison invented the first clock that was accurate within a
> second and his clock was made completely of wood. The he invented
a
> clock that could maintain that accuracy despite any jarring that
may
> encounter. Then he used this clock to solve a problem that had
been
> baffling people for years, how to determine longitude at sea. It
> depended on his clocks being able to keep accurate time across long
> voyages despite severe weather and ocean swells.
>
> However, John Harrison was not an astronomer. Nor was he a
> navigator. He was a carpenter. So many discounted his work. They
> thought "How can this non astronomer figure out how to find
longitude
> at sea."
>
> It wasn't until John was in his eighties that people finally
> recognized that John had found the answer. I wonder if I will have
> to wait until I am in my eighties before anyone will recognize that
I
> have found the formula for all prime numbers.
>
> I find many paralels between my life and the life of John
Harrison.
> I'm not a mathemetician. You wonder how I can figure out primes
> without having the extensive mathematics background that you all
have.
>
> John was expected to build multiple clocks, test all of them, and
> journey multiple times to the West Indies to prove his theories
> despite the fact that John only had a carpenter's income to fund
all
> this work. You expect me to come up with a large prime number
> despite the fact that my ancient computer can't handle any numbers,
> let alone prime numbers, larger than 12 digits.
>
> Very well, if you insist, I'm working on a way to come up with
large
> prime numbers, despite my computers limitations, using my formula.
> It may take time and even when I do come up with the number, how do
I
> send it to you. Should I type out every digit in an e-mail?
>
> Please, watch the movie "Longitude". Then ask yourself if you are
> like those astronomers that stood in John Harrison's way and stood
in
> the way of science.
• ... replies ... Actually, I am not replying to every email I recieve. Most of the emails repeat the same basic messages and so I ve sent more group replies
Message 6 of 7 , Jul 8, 2003
• 0 Attachment
<mark.underwood@s...> wrote:
>
> Hi bejjinks,
>
> First, it seems we are not receiving your replies. Please note that
> on your replies you have to override the default value which
replies
> only to the individual and change it so it sends to the group.

Actually, I am not replying to every email I recieve. Most of the
emails repeat the same basic messages and so I've sent more group
replies than individual replies. With the individual replies, I may
have accidentally sent them to the individual I haven't sent very
many individual replies.

> Secondly, I would very much like to hear what you have to say. I
> think that your theory can be explained even in text like this if
you

I've chosen one individual from this group and I've asked him to help
me clear up my terminology so that I can post it to this group in an
understandable manner. I should have that email ready soon.

> So I look forward to hearing more from you on this, if you wish.
For
> instance, do I correctly recall you saying something to the effect
> that finding larger primes took *less* time than finding smaller
> primes? I would like to hear more about that one! And also, can
your
> idea be used to demonstrate a numbers primality, or is it strictly
> for prime generation?

Yes, in a way, finding larger primes takes less time than finding
smaller primes. More accurately, it's not that it takes less time,
but that the number of primes produced is greater when working with
larger numbers. In other words, it takes approximately 5 seconds to
use my formula to calculate that 2 is a prime number. It also takes
approximately 5 seconds to calculate all the prime numbers between
30,000 and 500,000. In other words, it doesn't reduce the amount of
time for calculation, it increases the productivity of the process to
work in larger numbers. The only reason I haven't been working in
larger numbers is because at a certain point, the process becomes so
productive that my computer crashes from the sheer volume of numbers.

Although this process is mostly useful for generating prime numbers,
it does also offer some insight into the demonstration of numbers
primality that can lead to further understanding of the nature of
prime numbers. In particular, I know why all primes except 2 and 3
either equal a multiple of six minus one or a multiple of six plus
one. With a little help, I can prove that this is true of all primes
except 2 and 3 and I can prove that there are other "magic" numbers
besides 6.

p.s. not all the responses I've recieved have been so rude. A few
people, in this group and in other places, have been at least civil
if not impressed by what I've got.

• Hello: I don t know if I missunderstood what you wanted to say, but... the fact that every prime is either in 6n+1 or 6n-1 is trivial, watching at the residues
Message 7 of 7 , Jul 9, 2003
• 0 Attachment
Hello:

I don't know if I missunderstood what you wanted to say, but...

the fact that every prime is either in 6n+1 or 6n-1 is trivial, watching at the residues modulo 6: 6n,6n+2,6n+4 = 2·(3n),2·(3n+1),2·(3n+2) ; 6n+3 = 3·(2n+1) ... the residues 0,2,3,4 can't generate primes because they actually become in composite numbers. This only gives us the residues 1,5 to generate the primes (but of course they also bring a lot of composites).

I think you are computing something similar to the Erathostenes Sieve (as Dècio said), but I'll wait to see your base theory.

Good luck, Jose Brox
----- Original Message -----
From: bejjinks
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 6:32 AM
Subject: [PrimeNumbers] Re: primes and John Harrison

<mark.underwood@s...> wrote:
>
> Hi bejjinks,
>
> First, it seems we are not receiving your replies. Please note that
> on your replies you have to override the default value which
replies
> only to the individual and change it so it sends to the group.

Actually, I am not replying to every email I recieve. Most of the
emails repeat the same basic messages and so I've sent more group
replies than individual replies. With the individual replies, I may
have accidentally sent them to the individual I haven't sent very
many individual replies.

> Secondly, I would very much like to hear what you have to say. I
> think that your theory can be explained even in text like this if
you

I've chosen one individual from this group and I've asked him to help
me clear up my terminology so that I can post it to this group in an
understandable manner. I should have that email ready soon.

> So I look forward to hearing more from you on this, if you wish.
For
> instance, do I correctly recall you saying something to the effect
> that finding larger primes took *less* time than finding smaller
> primes? I would like to hear more about that one! And also, can
your
> idea be used to demonstrate a numbers primality, or is it strictly
> for prime generation?

Yes, in a way, finding larger primes takes less time than finding
smaller primes. More accurately, it's not that it takes less time,
but that the number of primes produced is greater when working with
larger numbers. In other words, it takes approximately 5 seconds to
use my formula to calculate that 2 is a prime number. It also takes
approximately 5 seconds to calculate all the prime numbers between
30,000 and 500,000. In other words, it doesn't reduce the amount of
time for calculation, it increases the productivity of the process to
work in larger numbers. The only reason I haven't been working in
larger numbers is because at a certain point, the process becomes so
productive that my computer crashes from the sheer volume of numbers.

Although this process is mostly useful for generating prime numbers,
it does also offer some insight into the demonstration of numbers
primality that can lead to further understanding of the nature of
prime numbers. In particular, I know why all primes except 2 and 3
either equal a multiple of six minus one or a multiple of six plus
one. With a little help, I can prove that this is true of all primes
except 2 and 3 and I can prove that there are other "magic" numbers
besides 6.

p.s. not all the responses I've recieved have been so rude. A few
people, in this group and in other places, have been at least civil
if not impressed by what I've got.

Unsubscribe by an email to: primenumbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
The Prime Pages : http://www.primepages.org/