[quote=ThunderDawg;198869]It is not really comparable to Eratosthenes. He used a very elementary process of elimination. I have completely skipped that process.[/quote]So far as I can tell, you've told us that your process was inspired by the "One Million Light Bulbs" challenge at curiousmath:

[quote=ThunderDawg;198783]I used to play math challenges at curiousmath and this is one that I won. Google "One Million Light Bulbs", but for some reason, it takes you to page 2 :-\

Whatever. It went thusly:[/quote]We have pointed out that the "One Million Light Bulbs" method is, with a couple of detail corrections, computationally equivalent to the Sieve of Eratosthenes.

Then you seemed to say that your current process is an extension of that method:
[quote]I think I used a Perl script to I solve it, but I also wanted to come up with a manual method of solving it, and I created a spreadsheet that calculated each value for a 100 x 100 array. The 1k x 1k calculations weren't even necessary. I could just continue the trend that showed itself.

Then I noticed something unusual: the "On" bulbs were pointing to Primes, not just one or two, but all of them[/quote]You've seemed to say that your work was on a version of the "One Million Light Bulbs" method that you extended to higher numbers, with the particular feature that you use your own visual scan to locate the primes on a graph of the method's result, going by the geometric patterns evident there:

[quote]If you wish to recreate the 100 x 100 spreadsheet, use Number formatting with red positive numbers, make the -0-s invisible, 0 decimals and shrink the columns down as far as you can. Zoom to 25% or lower. I used formulae to calculate ever "On" and "Off" - you'll have to do that yourself.

If you are a True Prime Nerd, you will see it. Wall[SIZE=4]á.
[/SIZE]
This I did with only the 100 x 100 matrix. The 1000 x 1000 no longer needs calculations. You can just repeat the trend going on. This is also true for 1m x 1m, etcetera.[/quote]Though you use vision to pick out the primes, it doesn't change the essential computational method use to produce the graph. That method is equivalent to the Sieve of Eratosthenes. Your use of vision to find points on the graph is essentially no different from looking at a string of numbers resulting from the Sieve of Eratosthenes and picking out the numbers not crossed off, because those numbers are the same ones that correspond to the graph points you pick out.

[quote=ThunderDawg;198869]If mine is an extension of that sieve, then I haven't wasted all this time.[/quote]Your feature of visual picking-out may seem different from, and faster than, the usual descriptions of using the Sieve of Eratosthenes, but it really isn't. A modern computer can pick out those numbers (the primes, that is) from the SoE result at the rate of hundreds of thousands or more per second, far faster than any person can do so visually. So, depending on your use of "extension", you haven't wasted your time.

BTW, almost everyone with good math ability finds that something he/she discovered or figured out independently when young later turns out to be a piece of historically known mathematics. E.g., when I was about age 8-9, I came up with a method that I later learned was equivalent to modular arithmetic.

It's no shame for someone to independently derive a good mathematical method that turns out to have already been well-known in the math community; that just shows that one has genuine talent for thinking logically about math. OTOH, when one converses on the Internet, one is almost certain to encounter cynics who will emphasize the lack of novelty to math in general while not giving one credit for the genuine novelty it is to the particular person who came up with the new-to-[I]themselves[/I] result.

Unfortunately, at any on-line math forum, there are inevitably some egotistical individuals who, not knowing the full history of math, come in boasting of a revolutionary idea they've thought up [I]and rejecting any suggestion that their idea is already well-known[/I]. The latter, when pushy, are deemed "crackpots". The difference between a crackpot and a non-crackpot may be their unwillingness or willingness, respectively, to learn how their ideas match up with what was, previously unbeknownst to them, already a firmly-established part of mathematics.

Equally unfortunately, forums sometimes have individuals who are overly-eager to throw the "crackpot" flag rather than simply and educationally show how the newbie's idea fits into the established mathematical world.

[quote]But there is the little matter of getting past those relatively tiny numbers.

If my model can predict their location, the problem is finding really large ones in an image too large to load or view.[/quote]Yes, but it needs to be understood that modern computers can hold in their memories arrays of numbers that vastly exceed the ability of humans to process visually as fast as the computer can process numerically.

However, the idea of using human pattern-recognition to guide computers [U]is[/U] applicable to the field of "expert system software". (For instance, human chess grandmasters have been consultants to the developers of chess-playing computers.)

[quote]But since the pattern is known, maybe I can develop a peephole where these enormous images are no longer necessary. Just like a telescope views faraway galaxies. I know, my crackpot rating just shot up again. But, think about it, we don't see planets in faraway star systems, we can only see the wobble of the star's light. Yeccchhh. Bad analogy.[/quote]Actually, as someone with a long-term interest in astronomy who seriously considered doing it as a profession, I'd say your analogy is okay.

[QUOTE=flouran;198896]Don't be so modest. You ARE a hot chick magnet already :wink:[/QUOTE]Well of course, but I want to be a rich and famous one also. :razz:

[size=1]PS: Please tell all the hot chicks that I am a hot chick magnet. So far none of them seem to have realised it. :sad:[/size]

[quote=cheesehead;198900]The difference between a crackpot and a non-crackpot may be their unwillingness or willingness, respectively, to learn how their ideas match up with what was, previously unbeknownst to them, already a firmly-established part of mathematics.[/quote]

My whole point was to speed up the process of figuring out whether there is firmly established prior knowledge. I call it prior art, but that is a misnomer. That is a legal term referring to copyright law, which has been established as moot.

If you worked 8-10 hours a day (for money), then came home and worked another 8-10 hours, wouldn't you want your baby to have all its fingers and toes? :uncwilly:

[QUOTE=cheesehead;198900]BTW, almost everyone with good math ability finds that something he/she discovered or figured out independently when young later turns out to be a piece of historically known mathematics. E.g., when I was about age 8-9, I came up with a method that I later learned was equivalent to modular arithmetic.[/QUOTE]

I 'invented' a divisibility test equivalent to long division, and later triangular numbers. :smile:

[quote=retina;198904]
[SIZE=1]PS: Please tell all the hot chicks that I am a hot chick magnet. So far none of them seem to have realised it. :sad:[/SIZE][/quote]
Since I know so many hot chicks and they tend to talk to me first, I will be sure not to tell them anything :razz:

[quote=ThunderDawg;198915]My whole point was to speed up the process of figuring out whether there is firmly established prior knowledge.[/quote]... and one of my points, perhaps not well stated, is that your quest for prior knowledge marks you as _not_ a "crackpot".