You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

Pages: **1**

**elliptic=modular****Member**- Registered: 2007-03-19
- Posts: 5

ello everyone.

my name is aaron, and i like

1: math

2. jazz

3. number theory and topology, to get specific on the first one

4. physics

5. biology

6. philosophy

7. literature

so... i joined this site because i had an idea, and tried it out, and it seems to work. the conjecture is:

I/(second prime after I)=a repeating decimal

where I is any integer.

i've tried this out and it seems to work. if there isnt already a proof or disproof of it, this would be an awesome contribution to number theory, so nobody steal it! of course, im sure its false, but its worth putting out there.

*Last edited by elliptic=modular (2007-03-19 15:39:37)*

Offline

**soha****Real Member**- Registered: 2006-07-07
- Posts: 2,530

Hello and welcome to mathsisfun,elliptic=modular

pls say why your name is elliptic=modular ????????

- David O. McKay

Offline

**Devantè****Real Member**- Registered: 2006-07-14
- Posts: 6,400

He tried to do an impression of Jaja-Binks (however that is spelled).

Welcome, elliptic=modular. Enjoy some of our great Exercises, topics, pages, and more!

Offline

**MathsIsFun****Administrator**- Registered: 2005-01-21
- Posts: 7,684

Hi elliptical, and welcome!

That property may be a natural consequence of it being rational, and never having a factor of 2 or 5 in the denominator.

"The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..." - Leon M. Lederman

Offline

**mathsyperson****Moderator**- Registered: 2005-06-22
- Posts: 4,900

It's not not having factors of 2 or 5 in the denominator that makes decimalised fractions repeat, it's having any factor other than 2 or 5 in there. That's nearly the same though, especially when the denominators have to be prime.

There is one exception to your rule though. Take I=2, then the second prime after I is 5, and so you'd get 2/5 = 0.4.

I suppose you could argue that that can be written as 0.4000..., but then there's no point in the conjecture because all decimal forms of fractions would be repeating.

You can quite easily get around that one exception by changing the denominator into the 4th prime after I instead.

Anyway, a jolly welcome the forum. Have lots of fun here.

Why did the vector cross the road?

It wanted to be normal.

Offline

**soha****Real Member**- Registered: 2006-07-07
- Posts: 2,530

why is the tittle Meesa New Heah

- David O. McKay

Offline

**Devantè****Real Member**- Registered: 2006-07-14
- Posts: 6,400

Devantè wrote:

He tried to do an impression of Jaja-Binks (however that is spelled).

Read the above post and you will understand.

Offline

**lightning****Real Member**- Registered: 2007-02-26
- Posts: 2,060

he is really saying me is new hi or i'm new so hi i think what do you think

Zappzter - New IM app! Unsure of which room to join? "ZNU" is made to help new users. c:

Offline

**elliptic=modular****Member**- Registered: 2007-03-19
- Posts: 5

haha. not quite. i meant, 'me new here' which was an admittedly lame jar-jar binks impersonation (note spelling!)

as for my conjecture, even if you dont count the number 2 as prime, its false, because it all breaks down at 12/17. oh well. we cant all be fermats.

as for my username, it refers to the shimura-taniyama conjecture which states that all elliptic curves can be related to modular functions on the complex plane. this conjecture, once proved, gives way to the proof of fermats last theorem, because fermats last theorem states that there is no solution to x^n+y^n=z^n where n>2. this is an elliptic equation on three dimensions, and the curve its solution would give cannot be modularized. therefore, if all true elliptic curves can be modularized, but fermats curve cannot, then fermats theorem has no solution. (my favorite piece of mathematics).

*Last edited by elliptic=modular (2007-03-20 12:08:54)*

Offline

**mathsyperson****Moderator**- Registered: 2005-06-22
- Posts: 4,900

12/17 is a repeating decimal, it's just that the loop that it repeats on is 16 digits long, so if you're just using a normal calculator then you'd probably miss it.

If you tried it on a better calculator that gave you loads of decimal places, then you'd see the pattern.

Why did the vector cross the road?

It wanted to be normal.

Offline

**MathsIsFun****Administrator**- Registered: 2005-01-21
- Posts: 7,684

Yes, I believe the rule holds (beyond 2/5), whichever way you express it so long as "2" and "5" are mentioned

"The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..." - Leon M. Lederman

Offline

Pages: **1**