VLRPNs
 

There is no Forum for these :[


I *may have* discovered a new method of finding VLRPNs, or Very Large
Regular Prime Numbers - visually, graphically. Without even making one
calculation. Contemporary searches today require Quadrillions to Googols
of Iterations...the only limitation with mine is the number of pixels you can process.

I have been searching PRIOR ART, but there doesn't seem to be any.

*OR*

I am not aware of any Research in this area.

If anyone knows of a VISUAL METHOD for ANY TYPE of Prime
Number Discovery, I think YOU GUYS would be THE ONES.

[quote=ThunderDawg;198677]Contemporary searches today require Quadrillions to Googols
of Iterations...the only limitation with mine is the number of pixels you can process.[/quote]But a limitation of large numbers of pixels you can process really isn't any different from a limitation of requiring large numbers of iterations, is it?

[quote]I have been searching PRIOR ART, but there doesn't seem to be any.

*OR*

I am not aware of any Research in this area.

If anyone knows of a VISUAL METHOD for ANY TYPE of Prime
Number Discovery, I think YOU GUYS would be THE ONES.[/quote]You mean that you want to find primes by just looking at some type of diagram/graph/display?
If so, how do you propose getting around the limitations of human vision?

Can you describe a simple example of what you have in mind?

[QUOTE=ThunderDawg;198677]I *may have* discovered a new method of finding VLRPNs, or Very Large
Regular Prime Numbers - visually, graphically.[/QUOTE]

Would you give an example?

I also have a secret (until now of course) graphical method of finding primes. And I shall reveal it below (aren't you lucky?).

Arrange N (our number to be tested) pixels in a straight line on the screen. Then try to make two lines by rearranging the pixels with ~half on one line and the rest below it. If the length of the two lines of pixels are equal then N is not prime and stop. Else continue and try to make three equal length lines. If you can get all the pixels in three equal line lengths then N is not prime and stop. Repeat for four, five, ... up to the square root of N lines.

This can also test numbers up to really really huge proportions without a single calculation/computation. It is at least possible to test number up to the really really huge value of 1000, maybe even higher if you are patient enough.

Pretty neat eh.

Woot, now I will be famous. Yay me.

[size=1]Or did I post this in the [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=100881]wrong topic[/url]?[/size]

HAHA, Retina, your post matches your Avatar so nicely ;-P


I will not reveal this in its entirety until I have perfected it to
my satisfaction, and claimed this as an [B]Original Idea[/B].
I have to insist on being given credit by .... Humanity. hehe
I had a discovery in tenth grade that partially failed claiming bragging rights.
I have been working on this for over three years.
It may take a Lifetime to finish...

In one of my math boards (which alas, is now inactive),
someone posed a challenge where I wanted to find the answer
by looking at an image of a matrix. I could have written a Perl script,
which could ssolve it in 420.ms, but I wanted Visual Proof.
>>> We LeftHanders are Visual Beasts <<< haha
It was a 1M x 1M image, So a MegaPx. All the Prime Numbers lined
up in a Straight Line due to the nature of the challenge.
The practically said "'ere I am, JH".

I cannot afford to get into arguments over its validity.
If this is just another Troll Board (I think it is NOT), I'll move on.
If you have knowledge of PRIOR ART, is all I care about.


I could re-install GIMPS if that helps :smile:

[quote=ThunderDawg;198677]Without even making one
calculation. [/quote]

I realize how OxyMoronish this sounded. It was very late in my TZ.
There ARE calculations to be performed, but not the usual and customary ones.
The real point is, it only uses 1/100th of a percent of CPU cycles versus current methods,
so it can VASTLY improve the speed at which other types of PRimes can be discovered.

I 'umbly think we could find a Trillion digit Mersenne with it.

Relatively soon.

[quote=ThunderDawg;198732]It was a 1M x 1M image, So a MegaPx.[/quote]
1M*1M is 1T (trillion/tera). 1K*1K is 1M (million/mega).
[quote=ThunderDawg;198732]I cannot afford to get into arguments over its validity. [/quote]
Maybe you don't [I]want[/I] to get into arguments over its validity, but for your idea to be remotely useful, for it to matter a bit if anybody before you came up with it, it needs to be valid.
[quote=ThunderDawg;198732]If this is just another Troll Board (I think it is NOT), I'll move on.[/quote]
This isn't a troll board, but to be honest you're sounding something like a crank.
[quote=ThunderDawg;198732]If you have knowledge of PRIOR ART, is all I care about. [/quote]
How can we know if there is any 'prior art' if we don't know the method?
[quote=ThunderDawg;198732]I could re-install GIMPS if that helps :smile:[/quote]
I don't think anybody here cares so much about your participation in GIMPS that they'd not help you because you aren't running GIMPS.

I have trouble imagining a system where a human looking at a visual representation of something that results in a 'prime' or 'not prime' result can process and comprehend it faster and more accurately than a computer. If you want any assistance at all, you have to publish your results. This is mathematics. You don't really have to worry about somebody stealing it. In general, only cranks (or the inexperienced, which I'll admit may simply be the case) behave like you do have to worry about it being stolen. There are no patents for mathematical truths. If you want to publish it in a place that records who invented it and publicly stores your theory, you could use [URL="http://arxiv.org/"]arXiv.org[/URL].
See [URL]http://primes.utm.edu/notes/crackpot.html#establish[/URL] for some basic info on the subject.

Thank you.

[QUOTE=ThunderDawg;198732]I will not reveal this in its entirety until I have perfected it to
my satisfaction, and claimed this as an [B]Original Idea[/B].[/QUOTE]

Actually, I'm not interested in the method at the moment. I'd just like to see one of the large primes that it creates, so that I could verify (1) that it works at all, and (2) that the primes it generates are indeed large.

Many posters on this forum have suggested methods that do not work. Further, if the method works but can only generate small primes like 1936593751828819 it's probably not worth spending much time on it.

[QUOTE=ThunderDawg;198732]If you have knowledge of PRIOR ART, is all I care about.[/QUOTE]

You haven't given us enough information about your method to allow us to answer that. (I don't mind, because I'm unlikely to search the literature without some reason to think the method works. But if someone else was more credulous, they still wouldn't be able to do the search with the information you have given.)

For one thing, it's not even clear whether you are claiming a compositeness test (like Rabin's test), a primality test (like ECPP), a sieve (like Atkin-Bernstein), or something else.

[QUOTE=ThunderDawg;198732]It was a 1M x 1M image, ...[/QUOTE]Where can I buy the monitor you used to view that image?

[QUOTE=retina;198755]Where can I buy the monitor you used to view that image?[/QUOTE]

You could use a multi-monitor layout. Half a billion dollars of these
[url]http://www.amazon.com/NEC-LCD3090WQXi-BK-30-Inch-Widescreen-Resolution/dp/B0013DJ31A[/url]
would do it.