You are not logged in.
So you want two odd primes for c and d.
c and d are not prime. Don't worry, I don't think they work. But take this new idea:
e=any even no.
e= a + b
We want a to be prime but we don't want it to have the same remainders as e, otherwise e-a= non-prime.
Finding the numbers that have a different set of remainders than e will be the same as the number of primes.
Because we are just trying to delete a different set of remainders. (instead of r.=0, r.=x). But hang on a minute r. for 2 will be the same in both sets as e is always even.
Therefore there will always be < no. of primes for the no. of numbers that don't have the same r. for e.
Therefore there will always be an instance for (a) and therefore an instance for (b).
Example: e=84
Finding the no. of primes in e:
2m
6m+3
30m+5 or 25
210m+7 or 7x7 or 7x11 or 7x13 or 7x17 or 7x19 or 7x23 or 7x29
For 84 count the No. of numbers it passes and minus it from 84 then -1 for 1 and + 4 for 2, 3, 5, and 7, I got 23 which is the No. of primes below 84.
Finding the instances of e remainders:
84 has remainder 0 for 2,3, and 7 but remainder 4 for 5. So lets delete the no. of primes that =(5y + 4);
There are 2 no.'s in 30 which have a remainder 4; 19 and 29
30m +19 or 29
84 passes through 5 of them but one of these is 49 so 23-4 but one of these is 2 also so 23-5=18 but don't forget to minus 3 and 7 so 18-2=16......
(5,79)(11,73)(84,71)(17,67)(23,61)(31,53)(37,43)(41,43).
I am working on a simpler theory;
e=any even no.
e=(c-a)+(d-b)
1) primes <e excluding 2
2) 2
c and d factorable by 1) not factorable by 2)
a and b factorable by 2) not factorable by 1)
Therefore (c-a) and (d-b) are prime.
I am not however sure whether I need to prove that e will = a certain size....?
Rule for primes;
x! is factorable by x only once when x is prime and more than once when x is not prime. This only happens when x>4.
If x=ab, ab occurs more than once, i.e. x!=axbxabx?
If x=
, occurs more than once i.e. x!=ax2ax. Unless =2 or less and x= 4 or1. a>2 is fine.I think this is simpler than x/x! factors down when x is not prime and doesn't when x is prime!
Goldbach's conjecture states; Every even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two primes.
How about this;
e= any even no.
c+d= e! factored down with factors of e, but not 2.
i.e. 12! factored down with factors of 12 but not 2 = 12!/3 as many times as possible = 12!/243=1971200.
a+b=(c+d)-e
(1) No.'s <e excluding factors of e, except 2
(2) e factors
f.= factorable by
e is f.(2) not f.(1)
c+d is f.(1) not f.(2)
a+b is f.- not f.(1)(2)
a is f.(2) not f.(1)
b is f.- not f.(1)(2)
c is f.(1) not f.(2)
d is f.(1)(2) not f.-
e= (c-a)+(d-b) = two primes added together. (They are prime because they are not f.(1) or f.(2).)
The above is true because of the following rule:
A=B+C If B is factorable by x but C isn't then A won't be.
i.e. A=B+C
59=21+38 21/7=3 38/7=5 remainder(3)
59/7 = 8 remainder(3). The remainder carries.
Even if a or b is 1 modulo 10, that doesn't guarantee that a or b is 1, and for large x, will give you a very large number of possibilities.
If x = (10c + d)(10e + f) where d and f = 1,3,7 or 9 I just have to prove c and e > 0 granted that x is not factorable by 2,5,3,7. i.e. a and b > 10.
I know how to prove x is not factorable by 2,3,5 or 7, I don't know how to prove that c and e are both >0.
But say I knew what d and f were, you would have thought I'd be able to work out what c and e were................ Don't you think?
Like this?
More like this;
x is not factorable by 2 or 5.
x = ab
x ends in 1; a and b end in (1,1)(3,7) or (9,9).
x ends in 3; a and b end in (1,3) or (7,9).
x ends in 7; a and b end in (1,7) or (3,9).
x ends in 9; a and b end in (1,9)(3,3) or (7,7).
i.e. 3x9=27.......ends in 7.
by knowing what x ends in we can determine what a and b might end in.
You would have thought knowing what a and b end in you could determine that a number is composite and therefore not prime, turns out it doesn't seem to work that way.
I am working on finding a solution to proving whether a number is prime or not but at the moment I'm focusing on Goldbach's conjecture which states that any even number can be made up of two primes added together.
Yes. But should be able to work out a rule to find out the number of primes up to a limit.
It's fine if you work with odd numbers only.
Say x=29,
sqrt(29)=5 rd. dwn. to nearest prime,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Delete All Even No.'s,
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 Times remaining by 3= 3,9,15,21,27,33 etc.......Remove these:
1 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 25 29 Remaining No.'s Timesed by 5 = 5,25,35 etc. Remove theses again = 1 7 11 13 17 19 23 29.
Take all primes < or = to sqrt.(x).
Multiplied rather than Times by...? Here is an example:
x=17 sqrt(17)=3 rounded down to the nearest prime.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 (Delete ALL Even No.'s)
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 (Multiply remaining no.'s by 3 = 3,9,15,21 etc.) Remove these No.'s Remaining = Primes bar 1
1 5 7 11 13 17
Take your Range x.
Delete All even No.'s then take all remaining no.'s and times by 3. Delete these no.'s Repeat for ALL PRIMES less than or = to sqrt.(x).
Yes, but if we input the smallest values for x and y, and it results in a no.>z isn't z proven to be prime or 1...?
I have edited formula. Thanks.
How about 8^2 - 7^2 = 15? x - y is not greater than 1 and 15 is a composite number.
Yes, but
andWhere 15=3*5 therefore x=(5+3)/2 and y=(5-3)/2.
Are you saying that if x - y = 1, then x^2 - y^2 is a prime?
No, what I am saying is only Primes and 1 can not have (x - y)>1, when
.If Goldbach's conjecture is false and in the occurrence of e= a+b, (e) being any even no. (a) is always prime and (b) is always non-prime. The below statement is always true:
"For any area of (y)squared or greater there are y no. of primes separated by <y sized gaps."
This is not true.
For the high No.'s >(y) squared these bigger gaps are eradicated by the smaller one's at the beginning. (e)/2 will never = <(y)squared where y is the biggest prime square <e.
If when (a) is prime, (b) always isn't, that would mean that (b) would have a prime within 12 numbers of b and not more. If it did have a bigger gap than 12 then there would not be a prime occurring every 13 numbers.
If primes are occurring within 12 numbers of b and a is occurring 13 times in 169, then non - primes (b) = (h,i,j,k,l,m,n,p,r,t,u,v,w,) fill in each gap with a prime and you get 14 primes i.e.don't forget h minus up to 12. Therefore one gap must =0 for there to be 13 primes and not 14. I.e. there must be at least one occurrence of (b) being prime when (a) is.
But if there is a certain no. of primes in a certain range doesn't that mean that the proportion of primes is high enough to create a and b?
PROOF:
(step 1) Take 169 write it down on a piece of paper (1,2,3,4,5,6,7.........169) not literally....
(step 2) Make at least 13 holes with the biggest gap being 12 between them. These are the occurences of (a) which are unknown.
(step 3) Fold the piece of paper 13 times these are the occurences of (b) which are unknown. Then un-ravel it and look at the creases...will any of the columns not have at least one hole in it.........no. Neither will the creases.
The Algorithm will always work because 13 primes with the biggest gap between them being 13-1=12 means that 13 squared (169) is the biggest range you would need to work with to find one occurrence of a and b.
INPUT e
(STEP 1) Take e, sqrt it AND THEN Rd. dwn. to nearest prime:
(STEP 2) Select a prime <e at random and minus it from e.
IF NON-PRIME THEN REPEAT UP TO A MAXIMUM OF, (sqrt(e) rd. dwn. to nearest prime) TIMES AND IF PRIME THEN STOP AND OUTPUT.
INPUT 268
(STEP 1)16.37 (2d.p.) AND 13
(STEP 2)1st go: 268 - 23 = 245 (a non-prime) REPEAT
2nd go: 268 -167 = 101 (prime) STOP OUTPUT (268 -167=101)
Note: The smallest probability will occur when two primes selected from <289 and >169 (Probability =1/169)
Probability from lower ranges will give a higher probability than 1/169 because primes occur more often in lower ranges.
I think I might have made a mistake which makes things simpler:
For No.'s<(z)squared the greatest gap between two primes will be (z - 1).
This is because the greatest prime we are concerned with is not z, it is the prime below z. Therefore you do not need to be concerned with remainders that are as big as z.
e.g. for primes <49 need only have remainders; when you try to factor primes 2,3 and 5.
You need not be concerned with a remainder >6 because; that would incorporate 7. We are not concerned with the prime 7 having a remainder at all.
Two numbers that add up to e can be prime because there is 1/z occurences of primes in (z)squared therefore the occurences of two random numbers being prime is 1 in (z)squared.
Let e = a + b where e is any even no.
where a is any prime no.
where b is any prime no.
((sqrt(e)) rd. dwn. to nearest prime) = z
In (z)squared there must be 1 occurrence of two primes adding up to e.
In (z) squared the biggest gap will be (z - 1) apart from around (z)squared where the gap will be bigger. Because for all gaps to contain factors of primes up to but not including z must be (z-1) at the biggest. (See earlier post).
With primes occurring every z numbers, if a is prime there is a 1/z chance and for b to be prime as well there is a (1/z)*(1/z) chance which = 1/((z)squared). So this will occur once in (z)squared. So e=a+b is true.
We can use probability in this case because it is definite that primes occur every z no.'s not that they probably will, we know they do.
(1) All I mean is; say e = a + b and there was only 1 prime that could = a and one prime that could = b. Then there would be only one occurrence of this happening in e and that's all we are looking for...at least one.
(2) Secondly (1/sqrt(e))*(1/sqrt(e)) would equal this.
If you round down......then you will equal a No. greater than sqrt(e)...........which means you can then say that the percentage must equal this. I can explain it as follows; if there were one prime occurring every 5 no.'s in the whole of 100. Then when I half 100..I get 50 and if there's one occurring every 5 No.'s on one side and one prime occurring every 5 No.'s on the other. Then +/- c = a or b, and a and b must occur because the probability of c causing a and b to equal primes is the above probability. There's a physics formula where if the No. of trees in a forest reaches a certain percentage, then if one of the trees catches fire they all do.
(3) Thirdly the last question is really complicated to explain but is all true:
To get a No. not factorable by a bunch of primes, you have to get those numbers multiplied together. Then minus....or add, a no. NOT factorable by them. Once you've grasped that, it's simple, to get these formula's such as 2m +/- 1 or 6m+/- 1 or 5 you just repeat the formula (x) no. of times and then remove all no.'s factorable by x....which will be exactly the PREVIOUS set multiplied by x. All primes will be found in < ((the next prime above (x))squared) otherwise they are at risk of being factorable by primes>x.
2m+/-1
6m+/-1 or 5
30m+/- 1 or 7 or 11 or 13 or 17 or 19 or 23 or 29
210+/- 1 or 11......all no.'s not factorable by 2,3,5 or 7....(therefore prime if<11 squared)
(4) Also the gap that I talked about alters the percentage possibly, but everywhere around that gap will have the correct percentage. e +/- c = a or b, how big does c have to be? sqrt(e) rd. dwn. I think because then you will have enough occurences for probability to take effect. This is just right because the big gap will occur exactly at (x) squared. So maybe round e down to the nearest PRIME and it's true.
Thanks.
For Goldbach's Theorem it states that any even no. can be made up of two primes.
e =the even no. then if there are more than 1 prime occurring in every square root(e) then the probability of this being true is 1/square root(e) timesed by 1/square root(e)
so if the gap between each prime is always smaller than sqrt(e) minus 1, then goldbach's conjecture will be true.
This is the case because;
2+/-1..
6+/-1 5..
30+/- 1 7..
210 +/- 1 11..
2310 +/- 1 13..
equals primes......to a certain point above highest prime squared. e.g.>9,25,49,121 or 169 accordingly. And so on but the numbers get very big but you can do this up to infinity.
As you can see the biggest gap occurs around the beginning which could possibly be bigger than e but this is not the case because those gaps are filled with primes normally. The second time this gap will occur is around the previous prime squared. This is because the sets are interlinked where if I wanted the next set after 2+1 all I have to do is repeat it 3 times and remove any no.'s in the previous set x3 i.e. 1 x 3 = 3.... to get 1 and 5. So as there could be a gap bigger than e - 1 that is not a problem if you ignore no.'s around that gap and think that the rest of the primes will have a density needed to create e then goldbach's conjecture is true. Especially if you think there is only one gap and not two so they can't affect two primes.