20150506, 16:03  #1 
Apr 2012
Brady
2×3^{3}×7 Posts 
Largest primes, location on critical line.
For the largest primes, is there a site that also lists their location on the critical line.
After a few quick internet searches I came up empty handed. Does anyone know of such a site. 
20150506, 17:57  #2 
Bamboozled!
"πΊππ·π·π"
May 2003
Down not across
13·821 Posts 

20150506, 18:11  #3  
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville
2^{6}×131 Posts 
Critical Line Quote:
Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 20150506 at 18:12 

20150509, 11:51  #4 
Dec 2008
you know...around...
647 Posts 
There's no such thing as "primes on the critical line" (at least not the critical line that is generally known as "the critical line").
The nontrivial zeroes of the Riemann Zeta Function, with which the number of primes can be approximated, are conjectured to be on the critical line, but there's no direct mapping that links these zeroes to the primes themselves. 
20150510, 02:57  #5 
Apr 2012
Brady
378_{10} Posts 
The association I intended was concerning the nontrivial zeros wrt to the Riemann zeta function.
When "critical line" and "prime numbers" were used in the same sentence I assumed this would reference the hypothesis adequately. Matt, you're correct in the literal sense that what I stated had no meaning; the function works in aggregate. If the R.H. was proven as correct, all primes would be countable within any range and associated with nontrivial zeros on the critical line. I'm not trying to prove the hypothesis but rather trying to understand aspects of it. Nonprimes are not countable within the zeta function (except by inference) meaning that the largest primes are denumerable. Is the density of the smaller primes and their contribution to the nontrivial zeros relative to the sparseness of the largest primes and their contribution separable and distinctive such that the largest primes "can almost be seen to map directly" to the critical line? For my purposes, I had developed a `cyclotomiclike` expression mapping several million sequential primes. The graph (using Curve Expert Pro) of these initial millions of points was smooth but not monotonic. I also examined sets of (much) larger sequential primes. Studying Chebotarev's results and complementary theoretical associations provided little additional insight. Since I was stuck, I thought I would ask a question. Last fiddled with by jwaltos on 20150510 at 02:59 
20150511, 04:02  #6 
Apr 2012
Brady
2·3^{3}·7 Posts 
A couple of dated files.
I hope these visuals assist my prior post which was far too simple to do justice to what is a very challenging topic.
Both graphs depict sequential primes of a specific form using a simple equation. The same parameters were used in both cases; as these are dated I have progressed a bit beyond what is shown. When the parameters are adjusted on sequential sections of primes, a graph similar to the first smooth progression will result. Splicing these results and interpolating provides a simple functional description for large swaths of primes of all forms but the technical justification is lacking. As an analogy, consider a head of hair where each strand represents a sequence of primes of a specific modulus. Combing the hair will create a nice smooth style but will do nothing to explain the raison d'etre of the hair. Last fiddled with by jwaltos on 20150511 at 04:51 
20150511, 13:35  #7 
Bamboozled!
"πΊππ·π·π"
May 2003
Down not across
13·821 Posts 

20150511, 15:07  #8 
Apr 2012
Brady
101111010_{2} Posts 
With all due respect, yes.
As a working professional in this field (as opposed to those who do not earn their livelihood in this field), when you discuss a topic with a peer or collegue there is a level of understanding that is assumed, otherwise, you are providing a lesson or a lesson is being provided to you. A specific jargon (not a bad thing) referencing appropriate technical mathematical terms relating applicable theorems and lemmas must be within the toolkit of the conversing particants, otherwise, the `information transfer` is degraded. Visual or symbolic (topologist or algebraist), general member or specialized professional [of this forum], we may think about the same things but we will express them differently according to our lexicon. (aside: Dyson should have received a Nobel for his work. I was assuming something here which I will make explicit, he demonstrated the equivalence of two different formulations of QED but did not share in the Nobel. (I'm not a physicist.)). If you know of the SapirWhorf hypothesis, then you will understand my point (I'm not a linguist.). I prefer not to make mistakes, but when pointed out, I will correct them. Let me ask you this, if you knew that I had a Ph.D in algebraic topology (I don't.), would you have responded as you had? Matt corrected me directly. You did something else. Last fiddled with by jwaltos on 20150511 at 15:59 Reason: correction 
20150511, 18:30  #9  
Bamboozled!
"πΊππ·π·π"
May 2003
Down not across
13·821 Posts 
Quote:
If I knew that you had that degree I would have assumed that you were discussing some other critical line about which I knew nothing and would have asked for clarification as to which line, which is exactly what I did. I accept that my question was rather terse. 

20150511, 21:40  #10 
Apr 2012
Brady
572_{8} Posts 
Completely fair.
I presumed a slight where none existed. If I had an advanced degree and had written the original post I probably would not have been as generous in my assessment. Thanks for the quick reply. 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Largest k*2^n1 Primes in 2011  Kosmaj  Riesel Prime Search  0  20120101 16:52 
Largest k*2^n1 Primes in 2010  Kosmaj  Riesel Prime Search  0  20110105 04:24 
Largest range between primes?  Unregistered  Math  10  20060821 19:54 
Largest Simultaneous Primes  robert44444uk  Octoproth Search  4  20060204 18:45 
What is the largest database of all primes from 2 up?  jasong  Miscellaneous Math  6  20060104 23:16 