20200429, 19:38  #1 
Apr 2020
3 Posts 
Prime numbers code broken
Hello, how about this solution using two mathematical formulas and trigonometric functions?
{url deleted by moderator} MOD: If the formula is so simple, type it in your post rather than linking to a website we know nothing about. Mysterious links from new posters looks like spam, particularly when making such an ambiguous claim. Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 20200429 at 20:24 
20200430, 15:11  #2 
"Daniel Jackson"
May 2011
14285714285714285714
1127_{8} Posts 
@VBCurtis: Could you restore the link, but make it unclickable? For example, putting it in a PNG image, or something similar.

20200430, 16:08  #3 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
3^{2}×7×67 Posts 
Sorry, I don't know how to do that.

20200430, 18:16  #4 
Apr 2020
11_{2} Posts 
Prime numbers code broken (moved from GIMPS News)
I sorry for my English and for not mathematical language ...
The following information related to the use of two simple formulas and trigonometric functions will allow us to learn the principle of creating prime numbers and predict their errorfree occurrence bypassing any actions related to the priority test. In short, we'll learn the longsought prime numbers code. MATHEMATICAL FORMULA The most optimal formulas for determining two number sequences in which over 73% of natural numbers are omitted and which will determine all prime numbers and "alongside" prime numbers are: 6n+1 n ≠ 0 and 6n1 n ≠ 0 Numbers from the set 6n+1 : 7, 13, 19 , 31, 37, 43, 49, 61, 67, 73, 79, 91, 97, 103, 109, 121, 127, 133, 139, 151, 157, 163, 169, 181, 187, 193, 199, 211, 217, 223,... Numbers from the set 6n1 : 5, 11, 17, 23, 29, 41, 47, 53, 59, 71, 77, 83, 89, 101, 107, 113, 119, 131, 137, 143, 149, 161, 167, 173, 179, 191, 197, 203, 209, 221,... As we can see in the picture below, we place our two sets with prime numbers and "alongside" prime numbers on the X coordinate axis. From the intersection of the X and Y axes to the left we place the numbers from the formula 6n1, while on the right we insert the numbers from the formula 6n+1 . Now a properly modified trigonometric function, e.g. sine, comes to our aid. We determine from our smallest number, that is, from the number "5" a sine wave that crosses the X axis every 5 positions both to the right and to the left. In the picture below we see the effect of this action: As we can see above, the places where the sine wave intersects the X axis are our prime numbers which are not prime numbers because they are squares of prime numbers and / or "prime numbers" or their products. As we can see, the next number greater than "5" is the number "7" and we can certainly say before determining the next sine wave that all natural numbers on our X axis smaller than the value of the square of the number "7", which is less than "49" through which the sine wave passes are prime numbers. The next step will be to determine the sine wave that will intersect the X axis every seven positions from the number "7". We see again that all natural numbers through which none of the sinusoids determined so far pass  smaller than the value of "121" (that is, the square of our next number which is the number "11") are certainly the next prime numbers. Using this method indefinitely, i.e. from the number "5" determining the sinusoide which intersects the X axis every five positions, from the number "7" sinusoide intersecting the X axis every seven positions, from the number "11" the sinusoid crossing the X axis every eleven positions, etc. we determine without error in advance prime numbers smaller than the square of the next number from which we finished determining the sine wave. All natural numbers on our X axis through which at least two sine waves have passed are not prime numbers, and all those through which the sine wave has run only once are prime numbers. Remember to determine sinusoide gradually, i.e. first from "5", later "7", "11", "13", "...". and do not omit under any circumstances the numbers through which another sine wave has already passed, for example the numbers "25", "35", "..." So by determining the sine wave only from the first 27 prime numbers (up to 101) we know that all squared numbers from the number 103 i.e. smaller than 10609 through which the sine does not pass are 100% prime numbers You can use a method that contains all natural numbers to determine successive primes where the principle that after determining the sine from a specific number will work, all numbers smaller than the square of the next nutural number through which the sine does not run are prime numbers, but this method forces us for operations on all natural numbers as shown in the picture below; HYPOTHESES The code of prime numbers and how they arise was known (broken) thanks to trigonometric functions that are much more efficient for computers to calculate than complex mathematical calculations. In addition, the use of formulas 6n1 and 6n+1 reduces the search for prime numbers to 33% of all natural numbers. All number squares from the set "6n+1" and "6n1" always appear only in the set 6n+1. In addition, the product of any two numbers from the set 6n+1 is always found in this set. The set "6n1" is more "pure" because apart from prime numbers it contains only products of prime numbers where one factor is always the number from the set 6n1 and the second factor is the number from the set 6n+1. The product of any two numbers from the set 6n1 always appears in the set 6n+1. Each number that occurs in the set 6n1 to check if it is a prime number is enough to divide only by the numbers from the set 6n+1, which speeds up checking whether the number is a prime number. 
20200430, 18:28  #5 
Apr 2020
3 Posts 
Prime numbers code broken  2 (Moved from GIMPS News)
I sorry for my English and for not mathematical language ...
As we can see, there is a relationship between the occurrence of zero Riemann function sites, the distribution of energy levels of the heavy atom nucleus and the occurrence of "alongside" prime numbers. More information can be found in the previous post https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=25506 
20200430, 18:32  #6 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
3^{2}·7·67 Posts 
It appears you are unaware of the topic of modular arithmetic. You've stumbled on to some very elementary observations about numbers mod 6, but these are not even remotely new insights.
Your final conclusion doesn't actually speed the search for primes, even if you only use trial division; your method would require trial division up to the candidate itself, while regular trial division only requires division up to the sqrt of the candidate. That is, you have no way to know which factor is of the form you are searching; if the smaller factor is 6n1 form and the larger is 6n+1, you would miss all factors if you search only 6n+1 forms up to the square root. 
20200430, 20:27  #7 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
2^{6}·3·43 Posts 
Mod note: 2 threads of the very same topic by the OP were merged. To the OP, use this thread alone.

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Prime Gap Search latest version of the c code  pinhodecarlos  Prime Gap Searches  170  20191210 19:33 
Some code for factoring numbers up to 2^63  arbooker  Factoring  209  20191014 14:43 
Need a collaboration to code a prime number finding equation  marouanerhafli  Miscellaneous Math  2  20190727 10:43 
What can you do with 2 prime numbers?  VicDiesel  Programming  12  20170420 21:16 
Code for testing a prime other than form 2^n1  MercPrime  Information & Answers  5  20130512 22:03 