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

Re: FW: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Easy formula for next prime... cant make itany easier.

Expand Messages
  • Yann GUIDON
    Hello, I answer, even after Chris sent a great post. I ll try to be more specific. ... good points :-) personally, I m not looking for a repetitive pattern in
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 27, 2010
    • 0 Attachment

      I answer, even after Chris sent a great post.
      I'll try to be more specific.

      Le mer 28/07/10 00:05 , Martin Aaronson a écrit::
      > Why are people still looking for patterns in prime numbers? If there
      >were patterns, prime numbers would come to an end and then start again ­ a
      >true paradox. If 2 follows 1, and 3 follows 2, how can there possibly be a

      good points :-)

      personally, I'm not looking for a repetitive pattern in the primes list
      because there is none, by definition, as you said.

      I am looking at how they are structured, and it follows
      a certain logic anyway. Basic definitions say what
      prime numbers are NOT, and not what they are.

      I look at the algorithmic side because i'm a computer geek
      and a program is more natural for me than an equation.
      And there are structures (not patterns) that are very
      obvious : the prime numbers are not random.
      there are ways to create the list of the prime numbers
      without sieving (eliminating) integers from a list
      but rather by building them from the precedent computations.

      Of course it does not come for free :
      the price to pay is a primorial growth of the storage.
      But if you don't expect practical applications,
      this is very interesting. For example, I believe that
      the twin primes conjecture can be easily solved
      by examining the right algorithm that generates primes.
      Steve Maddox's recent post gave me even more
      ammunition to build a solid proof.

      In fact, the proof of this conjecture is easily extended
      to De Polignac's conjecture. And once it's
      finally forgotten, Goldbach should come next :-)
      (no idea how yet but it looks logical)

      Yet I find the prime numbers almost boring.

      > Marty Aaronson
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.