mersenneforum.org The "one billion minus 999,994,000" digits prime number
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2015-10-24, 17:52   #34
alpertron

Aug 2002
Buenos Aires, Argentina

31·43 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by a1call I have not done any calculations for the run time. However for the sake of argument, suppose that there is a mathematical expression made of numbers and mathematical operators (example: 2 + 3) that is guaranteed to be a prime if it is less than 1010000000000. Then you won't need to try and calculate every digit of the mathematical expression. A scientific notation form it would be enough to show that it is smaller than 10[SUP]10000000000[/SUP. Still when you are talking about a billion+ digits the expression will be lengthy and run time long. But based on an educated guess it would still be quicker than what already has been done with relatively smaller large primes. But that's just a guesstimate.
From this text I highly doubt that you will find someone to program your algorithm, except if you pay his/her services in advance.

2015-10-24, 19:45   #35
science_man_88

"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

100000101100012 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by alpertron From this text I highly doubt that you will find someone to program your algorithm, except if you pay his/her services in advance.
Too late, but it's not really the newest idea. Or the fastest.edit never mind that pm was a test of my programming skills.

Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 2015-10-24 at 19:46

2015-10-24, 20:06   #36
VBCurtis

"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

23×191 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by a1call I have not done any calculations for the run time. However for the sake of argument, suppose that there is a mathematical expression made of numbers and mathematical operators (example: 2 + 3) that is guaranteed to be a prime if it is less than 1010000000000. Then you won't need to try and calculate every digit of the mathematical expression. A scientific notation form it would be enough to show that it is smaller than 10[SUP]10000000000[/SUP. Still when you are talking about a billion+ digits the expression will be lengthy and run time long. But based on an educated guess it would still be quicker than what already has been done with relatively smaller large primes. But that's just a guesstimate.
Do. It. Produce small primes. 20 digits with pencil and paper, use pari/wolfram to check your output. Your "educated guess" is uneducated until you demonstrate otherwise. Find a prime of length 100 digits, by hand or by wolfram alpha or whatever via your algorithm. To find one of 1000 digits, the algorithm should take 1000 times longer. Each zero you add for digit length, 1000 times longer to find a prime. How many zeroes longer is 1 billion digits?

My educated guess is that your method would take longer than our lifetime to calculate an actual 1 million digit prime. Your claims so far amount to "I have a formula, but I don't know how complicated it is for big numbers. Computers are fast, so I just need a programmer to make my formula on a computer, and it'll turn out primes fast. Easy!"

2015-10-24, 20:06   #37
a1call

"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There

3·643 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by science_man_88 Too late, but it's not really the newest idea. Or the fastest.edit never mind that pm was a test of my programming skills.
Not to mention elementary school arithmetic.

2015-10-25, 12:17   #38
alpertron

Aug 2002
Buenos Aires, Argentina

31·43 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by VBCurtis Do. It. Produce small primes. 20 digits with pencil and paper, use pari/wolfram to check your output. Your "educated guess" is uneducated until you demonstrate otherwise. Find a prime of length 100 digits, by hand or by wolfram alpha or whatever via your algorithm. To find one of 1000 digits, the algorithm should take 1000 times longer. Each zero you add for digit length, 1000 times longer to find a prime. How many zeroes longer is 1 billion digits? My educated guess is that your method would take longer than our lifetime to calculate an actual 1 million digit prime. Your claims so far amount to "I have a formula, but I don't know how complicated it is for big numbers. Computers are fast, so I just need a programmer to make my formula on a computer, and it'll turn out primes fast. Easy!"
If the method produced only prime numbers as the OP claims, there would be no need to check the output for primality. So the method could run a lot faster than O(n3). Anyway, it appears that this is material for a Math-fiction book.

2015-10-26, 00:12   #39
a1call

"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Remote to Here/There

36118 Posts

Hi,
Since someone let the cat out of the bag (with good intentions no doubt) I might as well let it out properly and 1st hand.
However, the following statement is likely to be overlooked by a few members and in order of not having to repeat myself, please forgive the text format:

The following is not what I had in mind when I decided to tackle the one-billion+ prime challenge. That theorem and its associated approach is still safe and will only be disclosed to a party with the right computing credentials which would be willing to assist me in this endeavor.

Anyone who is not pleased with that then, though.

One more note: This is a first draft of the proof and I have not proofread it. So should you find an i not dotted or a t not crossed, then good for you. A real mathematician would not need a proof and would instantly see that the statement is true (I know there are a few of them around).

Theorem 1:
For the set A of n consecutive prime numbers staring from 2 and ending at Pn.
Let:
BA & C=A-B

Let the number b be equal to multiples of any-integer-power greater-than 0 of all-the-elements of B.

Let the number c be equal to multiples of any-integer-power greater-than 0 of all-the-elements of C.

Then d = b±c| is a prime number,
d: d < Pn2
Proof:

d is not divisible by any elements of A, because
(I) if there are any a such that:
a A & (a B a B) &ad ( d/a = m & m ∈ ℤ)
Then
d/a = m b±c|/a = m |b|/a ± |c|/a = m

(ii) (a B a C) (|b|/ a ∈ ℤ|c|/ a ∈ ℤ )

Since |b|/a ± |c|/a is an integer and either |b|/a or |c|/a is an integer, then the other has to be an integer since the sum of an integer number with a non integer number cannot be an integer. This conflicts with statement (ii) which states that either |b|/a or |c|/a is an integer exclusively. Thus statement (i) is false.
Since d < Pn2 and d is not divisible by any prime number less than or equal to Pn , then d is a prime number.

The following is the routine that I have forwarded to the 2 people who have offered to assist me.

Quote:
 * Take any set S of consecutive positive primes starting from 2 and ending at some Pn. * Write a code routine to try either random combinations, or ordered trial combinations of all of the above primes and generate a sum of the form z = a - b where a and b have no common prime factors * a and b each, are multiplications of positive integer powers of any distinct and non empty subsets of A and B such that A + B = S ** Any sum z < Pn2 that your routine comes up with id's guaranteed to be a prime. Here is a small integer example for clarification: z = 13 x 112 - 72 x 5 x 3 x 2 = 103 Here S is the set of first consecutive primes from 2 to Pn = 13 A = {11,13} B = {2,3,5,7} Note: sets A and B do not need to be made of consecutive elements.
Here is the thread on the Physics Forum:

Thank you to all for your time and replies.

Last fiddled with by a1call on 2015-10-26 at 00:29

 2015-10-26, 00:49 #40 alpertron     Aug 2002 Buenos Aires, Argentina 31·43 Posts Although the method generates primes as expected, the minuend and subtrahend are almost as big as in the previous version. For more interesting ranges, you should subtract extremely huge numbers and the timing would be worse than trial division. You could use modular arithmetic in order to speed up your algorithm, but again this will be worse than trial division. Why? The union of the sets A and B must include all prime numbers below n. So you need to perform about n/log(n) multiplications mod prime greater than n2. So the number of steps is the same as the worst case of trial division. Notice also that to find a prime p
 2015-10-26, 00:57 #41 kladner     "Kieren" Jul 2011 In My Own Galaxy! 97×103 Posts Is this Phase 1 2 of [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We%27re_Only_in_It_for_the_Money"]Lumpy Gravy[/URL] Kathegetes? Attached Thumbnails   Last fiddled with by kladner on 2015-10-26 at 01:01
 2015-10-26, 01:11 #42 science_man_88     "Forget I exist" Jul 2009 Dumbassville 8,369 Posts so that wasn't just a test of my programming skills ? edit: is that better Batalov. Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 2015-10-26 at 01:26
2015-10-26, 01:16   #43
Batalov

"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

23·7·163 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by a1call Code: * Take any set S of consecutive positive primes starting from 2 and ending at some Pn. * ... * ... * Any sum z < Pn2 that your routine comes up with id's guaranteed to be a prime. * PROFIT!!!!!!!!!
So, you are saying that for you method to work you need to store somewhere all primes up to 10500000000, right?
Good luck with that.
This universe is not equipped to store all primes up to 101000, is it?

2015-10-26, 01:22   #44
Batalov

"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

23·7·163 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by science_man_88 so that wasn't just a test of my programming skills ?
A rhetorical question if there ever was one.

Not seeing your messages saves so much of my page space!
You really needed to quote the whole message to ask [I]that[/I]?

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post CRGreathouse Number Theory Discussion Group 51 2018-12-16 21:55 wildrabbitt Miscellaneous Math 11 2015-03-06 08:17 RobertS Aliquot Sequences 9 2011-05-07 15:30 nitai1999 Software 7 2004-08-26 18:12 juergen Math 2 2004-07-10 23:01

All times are UTC. The time now is 04:27.

Mon Oct 26 04:27:27 UTC 2020 up 46 days, 1:38, 0 users, load averages: 2.53, 2.72, 2.69