mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Miscellaneous Math

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2006-11-08, 00:40   #89
Maybeso
 
Maybeso's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Portland, OR USA

2×137 Posts
Default

Rde:

If I understand that part of troels "terminology" correctly (which I may not), numbers of the form (6*(+m) - 1) are constructed as -(6*(-m) + 1). Like this:
5 -> 6*(-1) + 1 = -5
11 -> 6*(-2) + 1 = -11
17 -> 6*(-3) + 1 = -17
23 -> 6*(-4) + 1 = -23

This is what he means by using +1 as the centre for primes and prime products. If he chose -1, then 5 = 6*1 - 1, and 7 = 6*(-1) - 1. That is why m is taken from -infinity to +infinity instead of just from 1 to +infinity.
(Does he say anything about m = 0?)

It would perhaps be more clear to use |6*m + 1| to indicate the sign of the prime is ignored. I guess he's trying to maintain a consistant clarity throughout.
Maybeso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-11-08, 07:08   #90
S485122
 
S485122's Avatar
 
"Jacob"
Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium

25·3·19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maybeso View Post
If I understand that part of troels "terminology" correctly (which I may not), numbers of the form (6*(+m) - 1) are constructed as -(6*(-m) + 1).
...
It would perhaps be more clear to use |6*m + 1| to indicate the sign of the prime is ignored. I guess he's trying to maintain a consistant clarity throughout.
I am afraid that Mr Munckner more than once denies this and this is why RDE asked Mr Munckner to respond in person. I am afraid that we will get another unclear and sidestepping answer.

I can not say that I see any constant "clarity" in his writing, alas :-(
S485122 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-11-08, 09:12   #91
mfgoode
Bronze Medalist
 
mfgoode's Avatar
 
Jan 2004
Mumbai,India

22×33×19 Posts
Thumbs up Troels terminology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maybeso View Post
Rde:

If I understand that part of troels "terminology" correctly (which I may not), numbers of the form (6*(+m) - 1) are constructed as -(6*(-m) + 1). Like this:
5 -> 6*(-1) + 1 = -5
11 -> 6*(-2) + 1 = -11
17 -> 6*(-3) + 1 = -17
23 -> 6*(-4) + 1 = -23

This is what he means by using +1 as the centre for primes and prime products. If he chose -1, then 5 = 6*1 - 1, and 7 = 6*(-1) - 1. That is why m is taken from -infinity to +infinity instead of just from 1 to +infinity.
(Does he say anything about m = 0?)

It would perhaps be more clear to use |6*m + 1| to indicate the sign of the prime is ignored. I guess he's trying to maintain a consistant clarity throughout.
:surprised

Well maybeso, of all the irrelevant posts and criticisms on this subject, I

think you have taken the trouble to understand troels mathematics and lead us all somehwere.

You have hit the nail on the head this time. Congratulations!

I reiterate troels definition from my post #76

[Quote=troels]
I reiterate Troels definitions.

2) The Never Primes: These comprise all even numbers AND all odd numbers divisible by 3
On the number line NP are located symmetrically around 0 and so may be called 0-centrred integers.
NP constitute 2/3 of all numbers including two real primes No.s 2 and 3.

3) Possible Primes (PP): These are all odd numbers which cannot be divided by 3.
PP are located symmetrically around +1 or – 1 depending on your choice.
These may be called 1-centred integers.QUOTE]
Mally

I note that he is taking three centres for his 'zero'.

The zero centred integers and the +- 1 centred integers.

Zero is very much there but is used for 'Never primes' ( see point 2 of his )

For 'possible primes' +- 1 are used as starting points thus

For positive primes like 5 , 7 , 11 etc. use is made of -1 as the centre using

the formula 6M - 1

For negative primes he uses +1 as the the centre thus getting -5 , -7 , etc.

using the formula 6M + 1 [here m is negative]

Of all the replies, yours makes the most sense and we need you to clarify

further what seems to be anomalies. I am sure that with a little trouble to

study troels posts, and with consistency, these could be ironed out,

resulting in a beautiful theory on primes

So please stay tuned Maybeso and I'm passing the baton on to you but will

check troels theory every now and then.

Mally
mfgoode is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-11-08, 15:10   #92
brunoparga
 
brunoparga's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
Brasília, Brazil

3×71 Posts
Default

Troels Munkner's definition of a "possible prime", which includes all the primes he's able to recognise as so, is *not* |6m+1|. It's just 6m+1, which implies 5, 11, 17 and 23 aren't primes, or that he'll contradict himself:

Quote:
Originally Posted by brunoparga View Post
I think the best way to find out what mr. Munkner means would perhaps be asking him plain, simple, easy-to-understand questions.

So, mr. Munkner, please classify both the statements below as either "true" or "false". Whatever your answers are, we've already understood the logic beneath them, so you don't need to spend time explaining why these statements are true or false.

1) The number 5 (positive five) is a prime number. True or false?
2) The number -5 (negative five) is a prime number. True or false?

Please do follow my guidelines strictly, as I personally have a very hard time understanding math which doesn't present itself to me according to them.

Thanks a lot,
Bruno
Quote:
Originally Posted by troels munkner View Post
1 is false,
2 is true.

Y.s.
Troels Munkner
That is, he has more than once stated clearly that, according to his "theory", every integer must be either even, or divisible by 3, or a "possible prime" (=6m+1). Perhaps he should add another category, like this: even, 3-divisible, "possible prime" and the-ones-I-cannot-understand-why-people-keep-asking-me-about-them, and those would include the (real) primes == -1 (mod 6).

Bruno
brunoparga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-11-08, 15:52   #93
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston

23×3×311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brunoparga View Post
Troels Munkner's definition of a "possible prime", which includes all the primes he's able to recognise as so, is *not* |6m+1|. It's just 6m+1, which implies 5, 11, 17 and 23 aren't primes, or that he'll contradict himself:





That is, he has more than once stated clearly that, according to his "theory", every integer must be either even, or divisible by 3, or a "possible prime" (=6m+1). Perhaps he should add another category, like this: even, 3-divisible, "possible prime" and the-ones-I-cannot-understand-why-people-keep-asking-me-about-them, and those would include the (real) primes == -1 (mod 6).

Bruno
He hasn't even presented a "theory". He has said nothing at all.
He has simply observed that the integers that are 1 mod 6 are closed
under multiplication and that they don't include 2 and 3. Big whoopeee.
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-11-08, 16:08   #94
Rde
 
Rde's Avatar
 
Jan 2006

1010102 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
He hasn't even presented a "theory". He has said nothing at all.
He has simply observed that the integers that are 1 mod 6 are closed
under multiplication and that they don't include 2 and 3. Big whoopeee.
I totally agree with you. But up to now, nobady could convince troels about that, so I tried it with a very simple question (Im still waiting for an answer).
According to his definitions, if I understood them correctly, 5, 11, ... arent integers because they dont belong to one of his postulated groups. If they arent integers, they cant be used as values for m in his 6*m+1 formula, so I conclude that also 31 (6*5+1) and 67 (6*11+1) arent integers, what leads to a total chaos.
Rde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-11-08, 17:17   #95
mfgoode
Bronze Medalist
 
mfgoode's Avatar
 
Jan 2004
Mumbai,India

40048 Posts
Lightbulb Mis-translation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by brunoparga View Post
Troels Munkner's definition of a "possible prime", which includes all the primes he's able to recognise as so, is *not* |6m+1|. It's just 6m+1, which implies 5, 11, 17 and 23 aren't primes, or that he'll contradict himself:

That is, he has more than once stated clearly that, according to his "theory", every integer must be either even, or divisible by 3, or a "possible prime" (=6m+1). Perhaps he should add another category, like this: even, 3-divisible, "possible prime" and the-ones-I-cannot-understand-why-people-keep-asking-me-about-them, and those would include the (real) primes == -1 (mod 6).

Bruno

Bruno, I think you caught him off guard on your simple questions. There is a language problem here.

Iwould say please give the man a chance and help him to develop his theory.
By criticism and sarcasm none of us can get anywhere.

But this is maths history all over again. Math'cians with original theories have received scathing attacks from other math'cians whose main purpose is to block the truth with ridicule and discouragement simply because they didnt or couldnt have the imagination to propound a theory themselves.
I am merely stating a historical fact and do not and will not engage in a controversy on this point.

If the moderator (and I appeal specially to Ernst ewmayer) can sieve out all non mathematical posts and comments in this thread I'm sure we could get a viable thread on prime numbers from not only Troels but other competent math'cians like Maybeso to unravel the skein of Troelsian mathematics.

What is the need of the hour is to have posters to look or scratch below the surface of the oxide and reveal the nugget below. Obviously throwing it back into the river cannot help much.

Bruno, for your benefit I quote below from Troels book.

3) Possible Primes (PP): These are all odd numbers which cannot be divided by 3.
PP are located symmetrically around +1 or – 1 depending on your choice.
These may be called 1-centred integers. [ For this refer to maybeso's and my posts]

Possible primes can be subdivided into real primes and prime products.

The possible primes constitute one third of all numbers [/QUOTE]

Please note that integers 5 , 7 , 11 etc. fall into this category.

Mally
mfgoode is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-11-08, 22:25   #96
Rde
 
Rde's Avatar
 
Jan 2006

4210 Posts
Default

Thx Mally for your answer. This was my best guess too. But the language of troels is everything but clear, so confusion is programmed. But I still dont see any value in troels thoughts (I may not be the only one...)
Rde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-11-08, 22:40   #97
grandpascorpion
 
grandpascorpion's Avatar
 
Jan 2005
Transdniestr

503 Posts
Default

97 posts and counting ...

Last fiddled with by grandpascorpion on 2006-11-08 at 22:40
grandpascorpion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-11-09, 16:34   #98
brunoparga
 
brunoparga's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
Brasília, Brazil

3×71 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mfgoode
Bruno, for your benefit I quote below from Troels book.

"3) Possible Primes (PP): These are all odd numbers which cannot be divided by 3.
PP are located symmetrically around +1 or – 1 depending on your choice.
These may be called 1-centred integers. [ For this refer to maybeso's and my posts]

Possible primes can be subdivided into real primes and prime products.

The possible primes constitute one third of all numbers"
Quote:
Originally Posted by troels munkner View Post
The expression ((6*M)+1) comprises all primes and prime products,
I'd suggest Troels reading his own book again, he seems to have forgotten some of the "theory".

Bruno

Last fiddled with by brunoparga on 2006-11-09 at 16:37 Reason: Added Mally's post which shows Troels contradicting his own book
brunoparga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-11-09, 16:48   #99
Terence Schraut
 
Oct 2006

716 Posts
Default Troels munkner's theory

It should be well-know that each base has a set of digits which multi-digit primes in that base can end. But is it, especially for bases other than ten?

Troels munkner's [(6*m)+1] works as well as it does since 1 is a permissable unit's digit for multi-digit prime numbers in base six. If I proposed [(10*n)+3] would generate series of prime numbers with some non-primes mixed in, would anybody notice that 3 is a permissable unit's digit for multi-digit primes in base ten?

It is irksome that troels munkner still seems to be a celebrity after I have made two postings of trivial background on why and what the limits of his formula.
Terence Schraut is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is there any such theorem that states this? soumya Miscellaneous Math 17 2013-03-28 10:26
Fermats theorem and defining a 'full set' for any prime. David John Hill Jr Miscellaneous Math 32 2009-03-13 21:45
New exact theorem Master Alex Miscellaneous Math 38 2007-03-05 18:30
Number Theorem herege Math 25 2006-11-18 09:54
Fermat's Fuzzy Theorem - any good for new prime test? bearnol Miscellaneous Math 9 2005-11-16 13:19

All times are UTC. The time now is 19:43.


Mon Aug 15 19:43:44 UTC 2022 up 39 days, 14:31, 1 user, load averages: 0.93, 1.25, 1.25

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔