Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ π -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

**martnSpruce****Member**- Registered: 2014-02-08
- Posts: 24

I'm new here, and I wouldnt be here if I wasn't looking for a help in checking my theory.

It works for some sort of digits (like 200k) but I'm not skillfull enough (newbie game dev) to check next variations. If it works, reward is juicy - large primes with zero effort.

here is the pdf of how it works (jpg slides in pdf):

im not able to post line with problem described, so I will try to trich forum. Sorry if you will find this offensive.

blue-boxDOTcomDOTplDASHklienciDASHhowtocryptDOTpdf

I really apreciate your help!

if you have any question/answers you can also e-mail me, e-mail is in last slide.

Offline

Sounds interesting: http://blue-box.com.pl/klienci/howtocrypt.pdf

'And fun? If maths is fun, then getting a tooth extraction is fun. A viral infection is fun. Rabies shots are fun.'

'God exists because Mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists because we cannot prove it'

'Humanity is still kept intact. It remains within.' -Alokananda

Offline

**martnSpruce****Member**- Registered: 2014-02-08
- Posts: 24

thanks man for pasting link. Im posting this everywhere I can, but Im not a math guy, so I dont know where I schould send this, and this is how I google your topic about primes, and registered account

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 82,724

Hi;

I am not following you. What simple computation do you mean?

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**martnSpruce****Member**- Registered: 2014-02-08
- Posts: 24

adding.

if you will find free spot, you just have to create new digit, lets say 11, and then 'occupy' every next number that is multiplication of 11 - 22,33,44,55,66,77,88 etc. Those spots are now 'occupied'.

Then you are going forward - number 12 - is 'occupied' by first prime - 2, so you are moving forward - 13 is free, so you create next prime and occupy every 13th number like 26, 39 etc.

Sounds silly, but its most basic description of non-free frequency I have found.

By adding all previous primes you are eliminating every number that is not a prime, and in final result you have list of primes.

Simple because you just have to add numbers endlesly and by adding you occuping not prime numbers. Each not occupied is prime (according to the theory, but require more computation).

Im game dev working in scripting language, so I can only generate 200k numbers array

*Last edited by martnSpruce (2014-02-08 22:35:28)*

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 82,724

I think what you are describing is called a Sieve of Eratosthenes.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**martnSpruce****Member**- Registered: 2014-02-08
- Posts: 24

it's irrelevant I think. its about to prove that primes are not in random places, and find the rule (and reason why they are so important) for all primes, which allow us to predictate the 'noise' pattern or maybe each new prime.

But I need more computation, Im not able to perform to move forward.

*Last edited by martnSpruce (2014-02-08 22:59:31)*

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 82,724

I do not think it is irrelevant. You are doing it.

Your idea seems to me to be the Sieve algorithm.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**martnSpruce****Member**- Registered: 2014-02-08
- Posts: 24

yea, it's easiest I could find to search for them using script. I described script I've wroted to search not the theory. Theory is not about how to find prime.

The core is to show that primes are not appear randomly. There is the rule where and why they are in exact place in the numbers array. And also why 1 cannot be a prime number.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 82,724

Hi;

There is no theory about the placement of primes. One person has been quoted as saying the primes are like weeds among the integers.

There is no simple formula that will generate all of them and no easy way to tell by looking whether a given number is prime.

And also why 1 cannot be a prime number.

I believe that 1 is not a prime because it is defined that way.

There is the rule where and why they are in exact place in the numbers array.

I am afraid no one knows whether that is true or not.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**martnSpruce****Member**- Registered: 2014-02-08
- Posts: 24

I understand, that's why Im posting it, to look for a help. If this wave theory could be correct next step is to create formula that is creating primes, because there would be a rule how primes are born.

So most important for me is to prove if following this theory anyone could generate 'false prime' somewhere.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 82,724

This problem has been bothering mankind for more than 23 centuries. There is no such simple formula. I could send you to the page but suffice it to say there is none that is computationally feasible. In other words it does not exist.

This is a major problem and posting this anywhere can not get you the help you want. Because if I could solve this I would publish it and be famous.

If this wave theory could be correct next step is to create formula that is creating primes,

I believe it is the Sieve of Eratosthenes in disguise so of course it is correct. But that will still not allow you to predict where the primes will fall.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**martnSpruce****Member**- Registered: 2014-02-08
- Posts: 24

bobbym wrote:

This is a major problem and posting this anywhere can not get you the help you want. Because if I could solve this I would publish it and be famous.

Hehe yea, you are right. But it works perfectly for the first few primes, and my theory is defined - primes are like waves appearing in every new frequency hole, also genetaring his own. All that anyone else can do is to prove it wrong.

On range 1-200.000 there is this simple rule of 'how', 'when' and 'why'. Question is - if it's general rule for all primes.

*Last edited by martnSpruce (2014-02-08 23:48:36)*

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 82,724

But it works perfectly for the first few primes

Your method is an algorithm. An algorithm is not a formula. An algorithm is a method or recipe. A formula is a direct relationship between variables. Your method of waves is already known as far as I can see.

Of course the sieve can generate all the primes but it is not a formula.

The smallest formula I have heard of is 4 equations in 58 unknowns.

Can you beat that?

On range 1-200.000 there is this simple rule of 'how', 'when' and 'why'. Question is - if it's general rule for all primes.

There are other methods besides your "waves" or Sieve of Eratosthenes. One of them is trial division. It too will generate all the primes. But for the purposes of computation it is useless because it takes too long even with the fastest machines. The sieve ( your method ) is also computationally infeasible ( it takes too long ).

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**martnSpruce****Member**- Registered: 2014-02-08
- Posts: 24

Prime computation is just side effect. According to this theory primes are just freqiencies where impulses are.

Noise itself is more important. If you recive for eq. radiation frequency you would be able - if this theory is correct - decode how many particles are generating impulses and what are their elementary peroids.

If it's not true (about the holes) schould be quickly checked by someone better in math than me

*Last edited by martnSpruce (2014-02-09 00:42:06)*

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 82,724

primes are like waves appearing in every new frequency hole

This is not correct. You have only proven that the multiples of primes act as waves as you call them. Nothing can be said about the primes themselves from your method.

If it's not true (about the holes) schould be quickly checked by someone better in math than me

I do not know about being better at math but I have checked it. There will always be a prime at a hole as you call it. There is nothing mysterious or deep about that. It was known to the ancient Greeks 2000 years before we were both born. It is called the Sieve of Eratosthenes.

About your radiation idea I can say little except if it depends on knowing where the next prime will pop up it will certainly fail.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

OK. You're welcome to our community. Hope to hear some more from you

'And fun? If maths is fun, then getting a tooth extraction is fun. A viral infection is fun. Rabies shots are fun.'

'God exists because Mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists because we cannot prove it'

'Humanity is still kept intact. It remains within.' -Alokananda

Offline

**martnSpruce****Member**- Registered: 2014-02-08
- Posts: 24

About your radiation idea I can say little except if it depends on knowing where the next prime will pop up it will certainly fail.

It looks like it works great in reversing. which is valuable in decyption of current cryptography. Also if you know how it works you can easily optimize sieve or (I hope) in future find a formula.

Im not saying its any kind of patern, but for example to find 19th-24th prime you just have to spin the whell of first 11. Larger numbers are, more (latest) you can easily exclude and still compute next primes corectly.

Also if its true you can predict how many bilion primes you need in sieve to find 10bilion digits prime (probably none) or 100bilon digits (also probably none).

@Agnishom: thx man its very refreshing to confront your ideas with lager community.

*Last edited by martnSpruce (2014-02-09 02:49:37)*

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 82,724

Larger numbers are, more (latest) you can easily exclude and still compute next primes corectly.

If you do, you will certainly miss some primes.

Also if its true you can predict how many bilion primes you need in sieve to find 10bilion digits prime (probably none) or 100bilon digits (also probably none).

Euclid proved long ago that there is no last prime. Of course there are primes with 100 billion digits.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**martnSpruce****Member**- Registered: 2014-02-08
- Posts: 24

If you do, you will certainly miss some primes.

The point is - you wont. I did computation.

To find prime:

no.168 you need to know 75 primes

no.303 you need to know 136 primes

...

no.9593 you need to know 4462 primes

You need about half primes because bigger ones are not involved in wave length so you can't miss anything.

Euclid proved long ago that there is no last prime. Of course there are primes with 100 billion digits.

Like I said above you can predict how many primes you need to find first with 100billion numbers (decimal). I didnt said anything about last prime.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 82,724

I am afraid that is incorrect. If you do not sieve out every prime all the multiples will remain. Half is not good enough. Large primes count too, why do you think the do not?

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**martnSpruce****Member**- Registered: 2014-02-08
- Posts: 24

We probably missunderstood each other. While you are checking if 997 is a prime, you just have to check if there is no interfere with primes in 2-500 range. Second half is irrelevant.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 82,724

You are still talking about tiny numbers that trial division would work on.

Is this 999999999999999999999999997162534177277277277271 prime?

We are interested in number much larger still.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**martnSpruce****Member**- Registered: 2014-02-08
- Posts: 24

Because numbers are irrelevant. To find if X is prime you need to know all primes in range 2-(X/2)

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 82,724

And how on earth with your method can you get all the primes from

2 to (999999999999999999999999997162534177277277277271 )/2 ?

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline