## Set of prime numbers

Expand Messages
• I do not know too much English, but with a translator program I am writing this post. I want to ask a question. I have also re-definition of prime numbers.
Message 1 of 10 , Dec 1, 2009
I do not know too much English, but with a translator program I am writing this post.
I want to ask a question. I have also re-definition of prime numbers. accordingly, "1 from another multiplier, the number of non-prime numbers are called." definition.
Set of prime numbers is a subset of the set of integers in the form of writing, progress in prime number Does work?

I've made such an impression. Namely:
A = (1,2,3,4, ... N) and B = (2,3,4, ... N) get. Number N of up to a set of primes P,
P = (A x A) / (B x B) / (1) shows. The number of primes up to here sum of N also can be found easily.

Also write an article on this subject with my friends and I wanted to run and we also arxiv.org. was necessary, but a endorsment.
Are you also can help in this matter I wonder?
Kind regards ..
• ... Of course, A.A contains 1.A = { 1,..., N } and B.B contains all composite numbers up to N, and { primes } = { all numbers } { 1, composite numbers }. But
Message 2 of 10 , Dec 1, 2009

> A = (1,2,3,4, ... N) and B = (2,3,4, ... N) get. Number N of
> up to a set of primes P,
> P = (A x A) / (B x B) / (1) shows.
> The number of primes up to here sum of N also can be found easily.

Of course, A.A contains 1.A = { 1,..., N }
and B.B contains all composite numbers up to N, and

{ primes } = { all numbers } \ { 1, composite numbers }.

But your method has already been published by Erastothenes some 2200 years ago, and was certainly known some 1000 (maybe 25 000) years earlier.

Maximilian
• ... I m intrigued by the certainly ; I would have said probably for 1k BCE. Do you have a source for this reasonable supposition? I m rather skeptical about
Message 3 of 10 , Dec 1, 2009
"maximilian_hasler" <maximilian.hasler@...> wrote:

> and was certainly known some 1000
> (maybe 25 000) years earlier.

I'm intrigued by the "certainly";
I would have said "probably" for 1k BCE.
Do you have a source for this reasonable supposition?

I'm rather skeptical about the "maybe";
how can we know anything about maths circa 25k BCE ?
As far as I know, the earliest proto-mathematical bone
artefacts that we have (found in Ishango) originate
after 10k BCE. How do you get back to 25k BCE?

David
• ... I d have said definitely for 3k BCE. Base 60 just screams knowledge of divisibility properties. ... Ditto. ... Well, not everything that is known is
Message 4 of 10 , Dec 1, 2009
> "maximilian_hasler" <maximilian.hasler@...> wrote:
> > and was certainly known some 1000
> > (maybe 25 000) years earlier.
>
> I'm intrigued by the "certainly";
> I would have said "probably" for 1k BCE.

I'd have said "definitely" for >3k BCE. Base 60 just screams
knowledge of divisibility properties.

> Do you have a source for this reasonable supposition?
>
> I'm rather skeptical about the "maybe";

Ditto.

> how can we know anything about maths circa 25k BCE ?
> As far as I know, the earliest proto-mathematical bone
> artefacts that we have (found in Ishango) originate
> after 10k BCE. How do you get back to 25k BCE?

Well, not everything that is known is documented in a lastable form. Two traders not wanting to exchange the entirety of their wares might need to be able to halve, and might have problems halving 5 goats or 3 bushels. Does that mean they have an understanding of divisibility by two? In an abstract sense, quite probably not, even if they're aware that some numbers don't have that property.

The Ishango bone with its supposed patterns of prime (and composite) numbers gives no clear indication of knowledge of any divisibility (or indivisibility) properties.

Phil, or not Phil
• ... I had similar ideas as Phil on this ... ... It seems that the first estimation of about 9k BC has been revised to ~ 25k (Wikipedia says 20k, elsewhere I
Message 5 of 10 , Dec 1, 2009
>
>
>
> "maximilian_hasler" <maximilian.hasler@> wrote:
>
> > and was certainly known some 1000
> > (maybe 25 000) years earlier.
>
> I'm intrigued by the "certainly";
> I would have said "probably" for 1k BCE.
> Do you have a source for this reasonable supposition?

I had similar ideas as Phil on this ...

> I'm rather skeptical about the "maybe";
> how can we know anything about maths circa 25k BCE ?
> As far as I know, the earliest proto-mathematical bone
> artefacts that we have (found in Ishango) originate
> after 10k BCE. How do you get back to 25k BCE?

It seems that the first estimation of about 9k BC has been revised to ~ 25k (Wikipedia says 20k, elsewhere I found 25k)
but this is still 10k less than the Lebombo bone, -- although both (esp. the latter) may be more of a calendar than a table of primes... (even if they have "29" in base 1 written on it...)

But if someone writes (or carves) a preprint about the number of days of a lunar cycle, then it should take less than 10 000 yrs to him
(or her) to publish a paper (or bone) about composite numbers
(i.e.: products, as the O.P. observed) and their complement...
(or at least "know" about it, which was all I "claimed"...)

Maximilian
• Thank you, Maximilian; but I told him a little differently. I mean, in fact, become getrimekti formula. Erastothenes, as this method performed. I brought it
Message 6 of 10 , Dec 1, 2009
Thank you, Maximilian;
but I told him a little differently. I mean, in fact, become getrimekti formula. Erastothenes, as this method performed. I brought it into the formula and I thought I could use proof of Goldbach's conjecture. also of prime test, an easier method, moreover contain certainty.
While investigating this, I noticed something. Even number greater than 2 and a close relationship between prime numbers.
I can not express what it is. but I can show you. that 'Goldbach' s conjecture can be used in the proof?
With this method, I found the formula for the sum of a series of prime numbers in total, the two parameters you change the series instead of 2 greater than the total number of prime numbers, the sum gives couples.
This parameter is reduced by generating equation can, until the total number N of primes can find, can I obtain a short equation. This equation will be deterministic, but the equation did not reduce.
I wonder how can I do?
In the meantime, while trying to reduce equation, I found many features related to prime numbers. One side is a parabola triangle, for example, in a geometric area of prime numbers has been collected, 6n +1, 6n-1 in the prime numbers reveals why he like.
• The operation of the law of small numbers in http://www.naturalsciences.be/expo/old_ishango/en/ishango/riddle.html reminds me of some messages on this list.
Message 7 of 10 , Dec 2, 2009
The operation of the law of small numbers in
http://www.naturalsciences.be/expo/old_ishango/en/ishango/riddle.html
reminds me of some messages on this list.

David
• ... Sorry for the late response to this thread but I ve been rather tied up with Real Life(tm) recently. There is a persuasive suggestion that the divisibility
Message 8 of 10 , Dec 23, 2009
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 23:54 +0000, Phil Carmody wrote:

> > > and was certainly known some 1000
> > > (maybe 25 000) years earlier.
> >
> > I'm intrigued by the "certainly";
> > I would have said "probably" for 1k BCE.
>
> I'd have said "definitely" for >3k BCE. Base 60 just screams
> knowledge of divisibility properties.

Sorry for the late response to this thread but I've been rather tied up
with Real Life(tm) recently.

There is a persuasive suggestion that the divisibility properties of
radix-60 arithmetic is a consequence of its choice, not a reason for its
choice. The argument goes as follows.

A number of cultures have independently invented quinary arithmetic, for
reasons which should be obvious. There are still relics of this in
modern culture --- the five-bar-gate tallying method, for instance.
Bi-quinary has also been widely used throughout history. This uses four
different symbols for the digits 1-4 (the symbols are frequently 1 to 4
identical lines or dots) and another symbol for 5. Digits 6 through 9
are then represented by the juxtaposition of the 5-symbol and the
appropriate symbol for 1 through 4.

A number of cultures have independently invented duodecimal arithmetic.
Many relics of this exist: 12 ounces to the Troy pound; 12 inches to the
foot; 12 pennies to the shilling and so on. The most convincing
survivors to my mind are the survival of the English words "dozen" and
"gross".

Some time around 4000 to 3500 BCE the Sumerians moved into Mesopotamia
and merged with a pre-existing culture. One culture used quinary or
bi-quinary and the other duodecimal. Neither culture supplanted the
other, rather their notations merged. Indeed, the symbols of early
Mesopotamian arithmetic and accounting documents show strong evidence
for a bi-quinary (later decimal) sub-structure in the sexagesimal
notation.

If need be, I'll try and dig up the references from my catastrophically
disorganized library.

Paul
• ... I learnt to count like that in Chi-Nyanja: modzi : one wiri : two tatu : three nai : four sanu :
Message 9 of 10 , Dec 23, 2009
Paul Leyland <paul@...> wrote:

> Digits 6 through 9 are then represented by the juxtaposition
> of the 5-symbol and the appropriate symbol for 1 through 4.

I learnt to count like that in Chi-Nyanja:

modzi : one
wiri : two
tatu : three
nai : four
sanu : hand
sanu ndi modzi : hand-and-one
sanu ndi wiri : hand-and-two
sanu ndi tatu : hand-and-three
sanu ndi nai : hand and-four
khumi : all-together

It seemed much more sensible than counting in French :-)

David
• ... That looks like the choice of 60 precisely because of its divisibility properties. They didn t take the LCM and later make a shock discovery that it had
Message 10 of 10 , Jan 3, 2010
--- On Wed, 12/23/09, Paul Leyland <paul@...> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 23:54 +0000, Phil Carmody wrote:
> > > > and was certainly known some 1000
> > > > (maybe 25 000) years earlier.
> > >
> > > I'm intrigued by the "certainly";
> > > I would have said "probably" for 1k BCE.
> >
> > I'd have said "definitely" for >3k BCE. Base 60 just screams
> > knowledge of divisibility properties.
>
> Sorry for the late response to this thread but I've been
> rather tied up
> with Real Life(tm) recently.
>
> There is a persuasive suggestion that the divisibility
> properties of
> radix-60 arithmetic is a consequence of its choice, not a
> reason for its
> choice.  The argument goes as follows.
>
> A number of cultures have independently invented quinary
> arithmetic, for
> reasons which should be obvious.  There are still
> relics of this in
> modern culture --- the five-bar-gate tallying method, for
> instance.
> Bi-quinary has also been widely used throughout
> history.  This uses four
> different symbols for the digits 1-4 (the symbols are
> frequently 1 to 4
> identical lines or dots) and another symbol for 5.
> Digits 6 through 9
> are then represented by the juxtaposition of the 5-symbol
> and the
> appropriate symbol for 1 through 4.
>
> A number of cultures have independently invented duodecimal
> arithmetic.
> Many relics of this exist: 12 ounces to the Troy pound; 12
> inches to the
> foot; 12 pennies to the shilling and so on.  The most
> convincing
> survivors to my mind are the survival of the English words
> "dozen" and
> "gross".
>
> Some time around 4000 to 3500 BCE the Sumerians moved into
> Mesopotamia
> and merged with a pre-existing culture.  One culture
> used quinary or
> bi-quinary and the other
> duodecimal.   Neither culture supplanted the
> other, rather their notations
> merged.   Indeed, the symbols of early
> Mesopotamian arithmetic and accounting documents show
> strong evidence
> for a bi-quinary (later decimal) sub-structure in the
> sexagesimal
> notation.

That looks like the choice of 60 precisely because of its divisibility properties. They didn't take the LCM and later make a shock discovery that it had all the factors of the two original numbers, shall we say.

Phil
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.