mersenneforum.org Counting Goldbach Prime Pairs Up To...
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2018-03-03, 20:12 #1 Steve One   Feb 2018 22×32 Posts Counting Goldbach Prime Pairs Up To... Goldbach Prime Pairs Up To 8282 = (91squared+1), both numbers on number line (1+n30). Others from (13+n30) + (19+n30) not counted. (Primes 7 to 61, each minus 2, multiplied together) divided by (Primes 7 to 61, multiplied together) × ((Primes 67 to 89(91 isn't prime), each minus 1, multiplied together) divided by (Primes 67 to 89) × (8282-1)÷60) = 28.2098. There are 28 pairs of prime numbers on number line (1 + n30) that when added = 8282 Or, (5/7 × 9/11 × 11/13....×(prime n1 minus2)/(prime n)) × (66/67 × 70/71....×(prime n minus1)/prime n) × (N - 1)/60 which equals 0.22126 × 0.92387 × 138 = 28.20980 N = 8282. n = prime preceding square root of(N - 1)/60 which is 89. n1 = prime preceding square root of (N - 1)/120 which is 61. Right but wrong?
2018-03-03, 21:02   #2
science_man_88

"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

26·131 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Steve One Goldbach Prime Pairs Up To 8282 = (91squared+1), both numbers on number line (1+n30). Others from (13+n30) + (19+n30) not counted. (Primes 7 to 61, each minus 2, multiplied together) divided by (Primes 7 to 61, multiplied together) × ((Primes 67 to 89(91 isn't prime), each minus 1, multiplied together) divided by (Primes 67 to 89) × (8282-1)÷60) = 28.2098. There are 28 pairs of prime numbers on number line (1 + n30) that when added = 8282 Or, (5/7 × 9/11 × 11/13....×(prime n1 minus2)/(prime n)) × (66/67 × 70/71....×(prime n minus1)/prime n) × (N - 1)/60 which equals 0.22126 × 0.92387 × 138 = 28.20980 N = 8282. n = prime preceding square root of(N - 1)/60 which is 89. n1 = prime preceding square root of (N - 1)/120 which is 61. Right but wrong?
Claims
1. Goldbach partitions congruent to 1 modulo 30<8282 =28
2. $p(n)$ the n-th prime. $\frac{\prod_{n=4}^{18}p(n)-2}{\prod_{m=4}^{18}p(n)}\cdot \frac{\prod_{n=19}^{24}p(n)-1}{\prod_{m=19}^{24}p(n)}\cdot \frac{90^2}{60}=28.2098$

Oh , and n=11 not 89 and n1= 7 based on those definitions.

Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 2018-03-03 at 21:40

2018-03-03, 22:45   #3
CRGreathouse

Aug 2006

2×29×103 Posts

Thank you for attempting to explain.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by science_man_88 Goldbach partitions congruent to 1 modulo 30<8282 =28
I assume that by "Goldbach partitions" you mean pairs (p,q) of primes which add up to a given even number. When you say congruent to 1 mod 30, do you mean that both primes are 1 mod 30? And then when you write "<8282=28", what does that mean? Something like "There are 28 Goldbach partitions of 8282 where both primes are 1 mod 30"? (I count 26, though.)

Quote:
 Originally Posted by science_man_88 $p(n)$ the n-th prime. $\frac{\prod_{n=4}^{18}p(n)-2}{\prod_{m=4}^{18}p(n)}\cdot \frac{\prod_{n=19}^{24}p(n)-1}{\prod_{m=19}^{24}p(n)}\cdot \frac{90^2}{60}=28.2098$
Steve has some sort of product which has the $$\prod$$ parts you suggest, but it looks like he has 8281/60 instead of 90^2/60. I find it somewhat inscrutable because the product with 8281/60 gives
29.239147
while the product you have gives
28.600059
and the product using his partial work "0.22126 × 0.92387 × 138" suggests 8280 which gives
29.235615
(all numbers rounded to six digits).

Probably this is all a mess because Steve doesn't know what he's doing. But if we pretend he does we could ask: what is this supposed to mean? It seems to be some sort of prediction of the density or count of the primes on some interval, but which and what exactly is it?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by science_man_88 Oh , and n=11 not 89 and n1= 7 based on those definitions.
More little mistakes showing that he doesn't know what he's doing (or is trolling, I suppose).

2018-03-03, 23:25   #4
science_man_88

"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

20C016 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by CRGreathouse Thank you for attempting to explain. I assume that by "Goldbach partitions" you mean pairs (p,q) of primes which add up to a given even number. When you say congruent to 1 mod 30, do you mean that both primes are 1 mod 30? And then when you write "<8282=28", what does that mean? Something like "There are 28 Goldbach partitions of 8282 where both primes are 1 mod 30"? (I count 26, though.) Steve has some sort of product which has the $$\prod$$ parts you suggest, but it looks like he has 8281/60 instead of 90^2/60. I find it somewhat inscrutable because the product with 8281/60 gives 29.239147 while the product you have gives 28.600059 and the product using his partial work "0.22126 × 0.92387 × 138" suggests 8280 which gives 29.235615 (all numbers rounded to six digits). Probably this is all a mess because Steve doesn't know what he's doing. But if we pretend he does we could ask: what is this supposed to mean? It seems to be some sort of prediction of the density or count of the primes on some interval, but which and what exactly is it? More little mistakes showing that he doesn't know what he's doing (or is trolling, I suppose).
I replaced "Goldbach Prime pair" with Goldbach partition because that's how I translate it http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoldbachPartition.html I replaced "up to" with < and left 8282 as it was the =28 came from another part ( claim about 8282 itself I think) he calls a linear integer polynomial, a number line. Both in the pair have to be 1 modulo 30. I may have confused where his parentheses are, but 91^2=8281 so maybe also a typo on my part. And technically the denominator products as I gave them, multiply to a primorial.

 2018-03-04, 16:41 #5 CRGreathouse     Aug 2006 2×29×103 Posts OK, but you don't know, for example, what region this formula is supposed to count primes over?
2018-03-04, 16:48   #6
science_man_88

"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

26×131 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by CRGreathouse OK, but you don't know, for example, what region this formula is supposed to count primes over?
No, because the thread title and first sentence, don't align with a statement made later. Thread title and first sentence say up to, other part says 28 just for 8282

2018-03-06, 19:09   #7
Steve One

Feb 2018

448 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Steve One Goldbach Prime Pairs Up To 8282 = (91squared+1), both numbers on number line (1+n30). Others from (13+n30) + (19+n30) not counted. (Primes 7 to 61, each minus 2, multiplied together) divided by (Primes 7 to 61, multiplied together) × ((Primes 67 to 89(91 isn't prime), each minus 1, multiplied together) divided by (Primes 67 to 89) × (8282-1)÷60) = 28.2098. There are 28 pairs of prime numbers on number line (1 + n30) that when added = 8282 Or, (5/7 × 9/11 × 11/13....×(prime n1 minus2)/(prime n)) × (66/67 × 70/71....×(prime n minus1)/prime n) × (N - 1)/60 which equals 0.22126 × 0.92387 × 138 = 28.20980 N = 8282. n = prime preceding square root of(N - 1)/60 which is 89. n1 = prime preceding square root of (N - 1)/120 which is 61. Right but wrong?
Interestingly, l did make a massive mistake.
Not,
n = prime preceding square root of(N - 1)/60 which is 89.
n1 = prime preceding square root of (N - 1)/120 which is 61.

But,
Should be n = ..................................(N - 1)
Should be n1 = ................................(N -1)/2
Interesting, that you didn't notice that. But then again maybe not.
Your ganging up is quite funny. I don't actually dislike notation. I just don't know it and didn't appreciate making out that it was godly and putting down my simplistic notation.
You guys remind me of my days playing Pool for a living on the road, The Colour Of Money/Hustler style in America in the early nineties. People like you would show off with your 2,000 dollar+ cues, then l'd get one out of the rack and batter you with it, leaving you pennyless. Do you get the analogy? Probably not. Regardless of how crap l've written everything, the fundamentals are correct. It's called intelligence, except the Collatz proof, that's just pure genius. Whereas yours is called being able to remember what somebody else told you, then just regurgitating it. Wow! That's amazing!

2018-03-06, 19:18   #8
science_man_88

"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

26×131 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Steve One Interestingly, l did make a massive mistake. Not, n = prime preceding square root of(N - 1)/60 which is 89. n1 = prime preceding square root of (N - 1)/120 which is 61. But, Should be n = ..................................(N - 1) Should be n1 = ................................(N -1)/2 Interesting, that you didn't notice that. But then again maybe not. Your ganging up is quite funny. I don't actually dislike notation. I just don't know it and didn't appreciate making out that it was godly and putting down my simplistic notation. You guys remind me of my days playing Pool for a living on the road, The Colour Of Money/Hustler style in America in the early nineties. People like you would show off with your 2,000 dollar+ cues, then l'd get one out of the rack and batter you with it, leaving you pennyless. Do you get the analogy? Probably not. Regardless of how crap l've written everything, the fundamentals are correct. It's called intelligence, except the Collatz proof, that's just pure genius. Whereas yours is called being able to remember what somebody else told you, then just regurgitating it. Wow! That's amazing!
you probably don't know intellect from intelligence.

2018-03-06, 19:20   #9
CRGreathouse

Aug 2006

597410 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Steve One Regardless of how crap l've written everything, the fundamentals are correct.
I'm glad to hear you think that. Could you clarify the points I've asked about? To wit:
• What is being counted, exactly? Pairs of primes which sum to N?
• Does your formula give the exact count or an approximate count?
• If approximate, in what sense? A heuristic? An asymptotic (relative error tends to 0 with N)? Something else?
• Your formula treats the primes from 7 to 61 differently from the primes from 67 to 89. If we use some other N, how do we determine which primes get -1 and which get -2?
• Does this formula work only for numbers N which are one more than a square, or does it work for more general numbers?

 Thread Tools

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post D. B. Staple Computer Science & Computational Number Theory 50 2020-12-16 07:24 carpetpool Miscellaneous Math 2 2018-04-15 00:28 Steve One Miscellaneous Math 20 2018-03-03 22:44 Paulie Twin Prime Search 46 2015-11-17 09:22 ixfd64 Math 2 2003-10-16 13:40

All times are UTC. The time now is 06:52.

Tue Mar 9 06:52:45 UTC 2021 up 96 days, 3:04, 0 users, load averages: 2.57, 2.14, 1.92

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.