Re: formula for primes
- forget the "negative prime numbers" portion in my definition. call it a rookie error from someone not up to date on the standard definition. what can i say, the shoe seemed to fit...but i realize now that it's a couple of sizes too large...forcing it to fit would require something along the likes of, '...divisible by itself, its negative self, 1, and -1...'
Will you ever forgive me???
The "Positive Prime Numbers" portion still works, though it should be renamed to "Prime Numbers" since it already fits the standard definition...
--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Patrick Miller <p777777c@...> wrote:
> From: Patrick Miller <p777777c@...>
> Subject: formula for primes
> To: email@example.com
> Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 9:53 AM
> I have something that i came up with for prime numbers...not
> sure how to categorize it - definition, pattern, theory,
> etc...see below and feel free to test it.
> Positive Prime Numbers:
> From the set of positive (x,y) integer pairs, the x
> coordinates (except for 2) not on the lines (actually rays)
> y=((n/(n+1))x+1), for all integer values of n starting at 1
> where the first (x,y) coordinate on any line (ray) is
> (2n+2,2n-1), make up the set of all positive prime numbers.
> Negative Prime Numbers:
> Reflect the y lines (rays) defined above for "positive
> prime numbers" over the x-axis then over the y-axis and
> change any reference of "positive" to
> I can show you my spreadsheet and how i came up with it if
> you like...took a few half hour chunks of time to get the
> definition how i liked it and to test the formula.