Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [PrimeNumbers] primes and John Harrison

Expand Messages
  • Jud McCranie
    ... 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 1 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]
    • Mark Underwood
      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 2 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
        define your symbols beforehand.

        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.
      • bejjinks
        ... 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 3 of 7 , Jul 8, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Underwood"
          <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
          > define your symbols beforehand.

          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.

          Thank you for your questions.
        • Jose Ramón Brox
          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 4 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
            To: primenumbers@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 6:32 AM
            Subject: [PrimeNumbers] Re: primes and John Harrison


            --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Underwood"
            <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
            > define your symbols beforehand.

            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.

            Thank you for your questions.



            Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



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



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.