Re: FW: [PrimeNumbers] Re: Easy formula for next prime... cant make itany easier.
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 theregood points :-)
>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
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 Aaronsonyg