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

You are not logged in.

#1 2013-04-17 20:14:39

Stangerzv
Full Member

Offline

My New Twin Prime Numbers

Consider this equation

Where all Pi are the consecutive primes, Pt is the Prime-th Power, n is the n-th of the Prime number, P1=2, and Ps is the resulting Prime.

Example for smallest solution for each Prime-th Power.

For P=2,

For P=3,
-Thanks to bobbym:)

For P=5,
-Thanks to phrontister

For P=7,
-Thanks to bobbym

For P=11,

For P=13,
-Thanks to phrontister

Last edited by Stangerzv (2013-04-24 22:34:05)

#2 2013-04-20 02:18:45

bobbym

Offline

Re: My New Twin Prime Numbers

For P=3

2^3 + 3^3 + 2 = 37

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.

#3 2013-04-20 02:34:11

Stangerzv
Full Member

Offline

Re: My New Twin Prime Numbers

Dear bobbym

P=3 has no twin prime solution because

and 33=3x11 which is not a prime

Last edited by Stangerzv (2013-04-20 02:34:49)

#4 2013-04-20 02:35:46

bobbym

Offline

Re: My New Twin Prime Numbers

Hi;

Oh, it has to both of them? I did not understand the question, sorry for the false positive.

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.

#5 2013-04-20 02:38:46

Stangerzv
Full Member

Offline

Re: My New Twin Prime Numbers

Yes bobbym..both have to be primes.

#6 2013-04-20 02:44:35

bobbym

Offline

Re: My New Twin Prime Numbers

For P = 3, how is this?

2^3 + 3^3 + 5^3 ± 3 = {157, 163}

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.

#7 2013-04-20 02:49:22

Stangerzv
Full Member

Offline

Re: My New Twin Prime Numbers

Thanks bobbym for the result for P=3

#8 2013-04-20 02:54:58

bobbym

Offline

Re: My New Twin Prime Numbers

Next one is at:

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.

#9 2013-04-20 03:06:38

Stangerzv
Full Member

Offline

Re: My New Twin Prime Numbers

I think there are few more solutions for P=3, have you tried P=7 and I think there would be no solution at lower amount or no solution at all.

#10 2013-04-20 03:09:24

bobbym

Offline

Re: My New Twin Prime Numbers

There are 5 solutions for P = 3 using the first 1000 primes.

I will check for P = 7:

No solutions up to n = 2000.

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.

#11 2013-04-20 03:18:28

Stangerzv
Full Member

Offline

Re: My New Twin Prime Numbers

I do believe that if there is a solution it should occur at lower primes, as the prime number getting larger, it would be hard  or impossible to find.

Last edited by Stangerzv (2013-04-20 03:19:11)

#12 2013-04-20 03:20:32

bobbym

Offline

Re: My New Twin Prime Numbers

Yes, the primes get rarer as the numbers get larger.

I have searched all the way up to the 2000th prime for P = 7 and found none.

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.

#13 2013-04-20 11:49:39

Stangerzv
Full Member

Offline

Re: My New Twin Prime Numbers

Hi bobbym

What program do you use to calculate them? On the other hands, can you get any solution for P>11? I think there could be no more solution, if there is one, it would be very large.

#14 2013-04-20 12:14:42

bobbym

Offline

Re: My New Twin Prime Numbers

Hi;

I am using mathematica right now for this:

For P=11

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.

#15 2013-04-20 16:00:48

Stangerzv
Full Member

Offline

Re: My New Twin Prime Numbers

I see, for P=11, I got the result already but not 13 and above.

#16 2013-04-20 18:31:57

bobbym

Offline

Re: My New Twin Prime Numbers

Hi;

For P = 13 , I could not find any and I went up to the 4000th prime.

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.

#17 2013-04-22 21:56:50

bobbym

Offline

Re: My New Twin Prime Numbers

Hi;

For P = 17:

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.

#18 2013-04-23 00:42:35

Stangerzv
Full Member

Offline

Re: My New Twin Prime Numbers

Hi bobbym

Thanks..It is really kool to know there is a solution for P=17.

#19 2013-04-23 02:46:56

bobbym

Offline

Re: My New Twin Prime Numbers

Hi;

For P = 7:

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.

#20 2013-04-23 09:12:33

Stangerzv
Full Member

Offline

Re: My New Twin Prime Numbers

Hi bobbym

It seems there must be a solution for P=13 otherwise it would look strange. Otherwise there would be a gap for sure. By the way, thanks for calculate the primes. If you could tell me how to do it with the mathematica, maybe I would do some calculation myself for bigger P and finding the solution for P=13.

#21 2013-04-23 10:01:36

bobbym

Offline

Re: My New Twin Prime Numbers

Hi;

I am looking for one but so far there is none among the first 20000 primes.

The code I have developed is highly inefficient, it only has the virtue of being quick to discover. I would need to clean it up some because right now it takes a lot of human intervention.

Also, I have an idea to speed it up greatly.

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.

#22 2013-04-23 11:27:39

Stangerzv
Full Member

Offline

Re: My New Twin Prime Numbers

Basically, If there is no solution for P=13, it would be mind boggling to proof it so but if there is a solution, it would be very big. I am currently working on my equations and primes numbers, there are many more equations but I need someone to help me with the coding. There is someone suggesting me to use grid computing and the problem is that, I am not a programmer and I have left programming more than 10 years ago. Maybe I could apply for a research grant to study these prime numbers and work with collaborators.

Last edited by Stangerzv (2013-04-23 11:29:16)

#23 2013-04-23 14:56:47

bobbym

Offline

Re: My New Twin Prime Numbers

Grid computing? Where are you going to get all the computers from?

The P = 13 will fall as soon as I bring more computers into the problem.

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.

#24 2013-04-23 15:53:07

Stangerzv
Full Member

Offline

Re: My New Twin Prime Numbers

A university here did invite me to use their first grid computing to run my prime number equations.

#25 2013-04-23 18:07:03

bobbym

Offline

Re: My New Twin Prime Numbers

Hi;

Why didn't you accept?

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.