mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > Prime Gap Searches

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2019-08-02, 21:33   #45
jaydfox
 
Jul 2019

78 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rudy235 View Post
I hate to sound somewhat pedantic and definitely off-topic but "fun" is a noun1 as in "the fun"," our fun", etc.
"Very" is an adverb which modifies a verb, an adjective or another adverb.

(1)At least it was when I went to school.
Actually, "fun" can be a noun or an adjective. A couple of examples as an adjective: Chess is a fun game. My friend hosted a fun party.

In this context, we could talk about gaps that are fun or not fun. For example, memory gaps are not fun. However, prime gaps are fun. Indeed, for Bobby Jacobs, prime gaps are very fun.

Yes, off-topic, and probably pedantic, but this discussion was also fun.

A little more on-topic, I do consider prime gaps to be quite "fun". I can remember as early as the 1990's reading about the race to discover bigger and bigger primes, especially Mersenne Primes. The primes themselves were the flashy new thing that people were interested in.

But now, I'm more interested in the prime numbers as a whole, as a set. I'm interested in the "structure", and how that structure seems to blend determinism and randomness. I was shocked to learn just a few years ago that prime gaps of length 6 are far more common than gaps of length 2 or 4. I understood that the "density" of primes is approximately the reciprocal of the logarithm of the numbers being considered, but I had never really given much thought to the structure of the set of primes.

I was further shocked to learn that the number of primes so closely approximates the logarithmic integral. I mean, it makes sense that if the density is approximately the reciprocal of the logarithm, then the total number of primes should be approximately the integral of that function, i.e., the logarithmic integral function. But in my mind, the word "approximately" implied quite a bit of potential variance. It was only after reading something about a year ago that it finally sank it. If the prime counting function has an error term of O(log(x) sqrt(x)), then when x is large enough, the logarithmic integral is extremely accurate. For example, using only the logarithmic integral, we can calculate the number of primes less than a googol (i.e., 10^100) to about 46 digits of accuracy. That shocked me to learn. I had no idea that it was that precise.

I've been interested in the Riemann Hypothesis for a couple decades, but it's amazing to me how little I really know about prime numbers. For me to know so little about primes, I often wonder if I should bother caring about the RH.

So I study the primes, the structure. I want to learn more, run experiments, get an intuitive feel for the primes. And I want to learn some of the theory, but in a practical, hands-on way, so that I really understand it. Years ago I had this naive daydream of someday proving (or disproving) the RH, but now I just want to learn more about primes, and maybe contribute some small bit to our collective understanding.
jaydfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-08-03, 21:01   #46
rudy235
 
rudy235's Avatar
 
Jun 2015
Vallejo, CA/.

7·137 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaydfox View Post
Actually, "fun" can be a noun or an adjective. A couple of examples as an adjective: Chess is a fun game. My friend hosted a fun party.

In this context, we could talk about gaps that are fun or not fun. For example, memory gaps are not fun. However, prime gaps are fun. Indeed, for Bobby Jacobs, prime gaps are very fun.

Yes, off-topic, and probably pedantic, but this discussion was also fun.
Perhaps the "fun is a noun" argument does not quite explain it. But I still contend that "very fun" is very unfun . At least it was when I went to school. Perhaps usage will finally make it gain acceptance. For instance: "I feel badly" is an horror that has now become commonplace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaydfox View Post
A little more on-topic, I do consider prime gaps to be quite "fun". I can remember as early as the 1990's reading about the race to discover bigger and bigger primes, especially Mersenne Primes. The primes themselves were the flashy new thing that people were interested in.

But now, I'm more interested in the prime numbers as a whole, as a set. I'm interested in the "structure", and how that structure seems to blend determinism and randomness. I was shocked to learn just a few years ago that prime gaps of length 6 are far more common than gaps of length 2 or 4. I understood that the "density" of primes is approximately the reciprocal of the logarithm of the numbers being considered, but I had never really given much thought to the structure of the set of primes.
It so happens that 6 is not the most common gap either. It is just the most common gap up to a point and after that 30 takes over and then theoretically the next primorial (210) would take over.

However, there is always a question I've had. Which number do we take for a gap of size 6? Ordinarily, it would be the sequence http://oeis.org/A023201, because when defining "sexy" primes it doesn't matter if there is a prime (or not) between them.

While the gaps of 2 and 4 are (with one exception) always contiguous, the gaps of 6 or 30 may or may not be like that.

Take for instance gaps of 6 up to 100

5,11 7,13 11,17 13,19 17,23 23,29 31,37 41,47 47,53 53,59 61,67 67,73 73,79 83,89 97,103 see http://oeis.org/A023201

Of all of these only 23,29 31,37 47,53 53,59 61,67 73,79 83,89 are consecutive primes

see http://oeis.org/A031924


As the numbers grow bigger both sequences (A023201 and A031924) start to look alike. The only "sexy" primes that have a prime between them are the TRIPLETS.

The density of triplets is one order of magnitude less than that of the sexy primes.
Between 23 and 554,893 there are 8,158 pairs of primes with gap 6
Between 5 and 554,893 there are 10,000 pairs of "sexy primes".
between 5 and 554,887 there 1842 set of triplets (either { p, p+2, p+6} or {p, p+4, p+6}

The density of Prime triplet becomes sparse for higher numbers, below 100 million there are only 111,156 triplets. (1/10 of 1%) So for sufficiently high intervals the number of Sexy primes approximates the numbers of primes with gap 6

So to compare twin primes, sexy primes, cousin primes and triplets
Code:
SEXY PRIMES          TWIN PRIMES         COUSIN PRIMES   TRIPLETS
Under 1,299,709     UNDER 1,299,709     UNDER 1,299,709   UNDER 1,299,709
24,168               20,498              16,943           3,483

So even if we discard the "sexy" that have a prime in between we still have more primes with gap 6 than twins 20685 vs 20498

This numbers (gap 2 vs gap 6) will not remain close, because as the tested interval go higher triplets become sparser and sparser.

If I have time i'll try to see how many "sexy" primes there are under 10 million and compare it with "twin" primes, "cousin" primes and "triplets".
rudy235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-08-03, 22:23   #47
rudy235
 
rudy235's Avatar
 
Jun 2015
Vallejo, CA/.

16778 Posts
Default

They were some mistakes in the charts as I used info from different databases.
This is corrected version of the table
So to compare twin primes, sexy primes, cousin primes and triplets all under 1'040,000
Code:
SEXY PRIMES          TWIN PRIMES         COUSIN PRIMES   TRIPLETS
Under 1,04000       UNDER 1,040,000     UNDER 1,040,000   UNDER 1,040,000
16,951              8,464               8,438             2,935
The source of all this info comes from this wonderful webpage.

https://prime-numbers.info/#numberTypes

As can be seen regardless of how we count gaps of 6 –either pure gaps like {23,29} alone or if we include gaps that belong to a triplet like {103,109}– the fact remains that primes with a gap of 6 are (at least in these ranges) almost twice than twin primes.

Last fiddled with by robert44444uk on 2019-08-05 at 11:18 Reason: Poster out of time to make change
rudy235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-12-23, 22:46   #48
Bobby Jacobs
 
Bobby Jacobs's Avatar
 
May 2018

22×47 Posts
Default

I was on OEIS recently and saw that some of the prime gap sequences are now on OEIS. The gaps between record gaps between record prime gaps are A326747, and the record gaps between record gaps between record prime gaps are A326829.
Bobby Jacobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-12-24, 10:04   #49
robert44444uk
 
robert44444uk's Avatar
 
Jun 2003
Oxford, UK

111010100112 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Jacobs View Post
I was on OEIS recently and saw that some of the prime gap sequences are now on OEIS. The gaps between record gaps between record prime gaps are A326747, and the record gaps between record gaps between record prime gaps are A326829.
Interesting, but as Mr Sloane says on A326747, "let us stop here"
robert44444uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-07-08, 21:06   #50
Bobby Jacobs
 
Bobby Jacobs's Avatar
 
May 2018

101111002 Posts
Default

Unfortunately, the sequences of gaps between record gaps between record prime gaps and record gaps between record gaps between record prime gaps are no longer on OEIS anymore. The sequences A326747, A326829 are now different sequences.
Bobby Jacobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-07-08, 21:27   #51
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

1101000001002 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Jacobs View Post
Unfortunately, the sequences of gaps between record gaps between record prime gaps and record gaps between record gaps between record prime gaps are no longer on OEIS anymore. The sequences A326747, A326829 are now different sequences.
James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher
paulunderwood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-07-09, 07:49   #52
JeppeSN
 
JeppeSN's Avatar
 
"Jeppe"
Jan 2016
Denmark

2·71 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Jacobs View Post
Unfortunately, the sequences of gaps between record gaps between record prime gaps and record gaps between record gaps between record prime gaps are no longer on OEIS anymore. The sequences A326747, A326829 are now different sequences.
True. You can still see the historic versions, for example:
A326747 revision #56
A326829 revision #34
/JeppeSN
JeppeSN is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No way to measure record prime gaps Bobby Jacobs Prime Gap Searches 42 2019-02-27 21:54
Prime gaps above 2^64 Bobby Jacobs Prime Gap Searches 11 2018-07-02 00:28
Prime gaps and storage HellGauss Computer Science & Computational Number Theory 18 2015-11-16 14:21
Gaps and more gaps on <300 site gd_barnes Riesel Prime Search 11 2007-06-27 04:12
Prime gaps Terence Schraut Miscellaneous Math 9 2006-12-02 20:50

All times are UTC. The time now is 20:03.

Thu Aug 6 20:03:38 UTC 2020 up 20 days, 15:50, 3 users, load averages: 1.29, 1.48, 1.57

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.