The "one billion minus 999,994,000" digits prime number

[VBCurtis]

Originally Posted by a1call

My apologies. By divergence I mean divergence of a sum to less than a value (largest prime factor squared in this case).
The example that I provided is not only difficult to diverge, but virtually impossible. That is why I posted it on the open forum, since it will not make anyone claim any prizes.
However, my theorem can result in a formula that will diverge to a value where the associated proof confirms the output number is prime.

You seem deaf to both RDS' usual insults (translation: You're a crackpot) and the gentler efforts of others to point out that you've done nothing whatsoever to make your claim believable. Since you are stubborn and wish to not discuss your algorithm, your best path is to produce a 1M digit prime right quick. Since you have no code with which to do that, and no interest in having your process/formula/whatever reviewed, your claims have *nothing* whatsoever to support them, and nobody in their right mind on this forum is going to offer to help you except perhaps to hear what the supposed process is.

So, since your arguments are so far leading us nowhere, you ought to decide how you might convince someone skilled enough in mathematics to check your work and skilled enough in coding to implement your process that you're not a crackpot. You may wish to read the crackpot index guidelines, composed by one of my colleagues John Baez (found at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). A non-crackpot will be able to realize which of the listed items applies to this thread, and will be able to decide how to go about reducing one's score.

Good luck.

[a1call]

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

Since you have no code with which to do that, and no interest in having your process/formula/whatever reviewed, your claims have *nothing* whatsoever to support them, and nobody in their right mind on this forum is going to offer to help you except perhaps to hear what the supposed process is.

Thank you VBCurtis for your reply.
I have already mentioned that I am quite willing to disclose my theorem in confidence along with the mathematical proof that it is true to any party who would be willing to assist me and has the resources to generate and run the code to produce prize winning primes. I'm just not going to post it on the open forum.
The following is not relevant to your post.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

You seem deaf to both RDS' usual insults (translation: You're a crackpot) and the gentler efforts of others to point out that you've done nothing whatsoever to make your claim believable. Since you are stubborn and wish to not discuss your algorithm, your best path is to produce a 1M digit prime right quick. Since you have no code with which to do that, and no interest in having your process/formula/whatever reviewed, your claims have *nothing* whatsoever to support them, and nobody in their right mind on this forum is going to offer to help you except perhaps to hear what the supposed process is.

So, since your arguments are so far leading us nowhere, you ought to decide how you might convince someone skilled enough in mathematics to check your work and skilled enough in coding to implement your process that you're not a crackpot. You may wish to read the crackpot index guidelines, composed by one of my colleagues John Baez (found at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). A non-crackpot will be able to realize which of the listed items applies to this thread, and will be able to decide how to go about reducing one's score.

Good luck.

I reckon he's on about 50 points.

[rogue]

Originally Posted by a1call

Thank you VBCurtis for your reply.
I have already mentioned that I am quite willing to disclose my theorem in confidence along with the mathematical proof that it is true to any party who would be willing to assist me and has the resources to generate and run the code to produce prize winning primes. I'm just not going to post it on the open forum.
The following is not relevant to your post.

Even if you do not know how to program, I would think you could produce some relatively small prime numbers by hand since you know the formulae used to generate them.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by a1call

As mentioned I am hoping to submit my theorems for publication at some point, so I am not going to disclose them here in the open.

Crank behavior.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by a1call

Hello alpertron,
I am aware of the proof for impossibility of regular as well as irregular polynomials generating prime numbers for all values of n.
However there are no proofs that other formulas will fail as well. An example would be Mills' formula, which is generally accepted to generate primes if the constant can be calculated.

Which it can't.

Would a moderator please move this thread to the crank sub-forum?

[Mark Rose]

Originally Posted by a1call

Thank you VBCurtis for your reply.
I have already mentioned that I am quite willing to disclose my theorem in confidence along with the mathematical proof that it is true to any party who would be willing to assist me and has the resources to generate and run the code to produce prize winning primes. I'm just not going to post it on the open forum.
The following is not relevant to your post.

I am not one of the resident math heads, so I have no business there. However, I am curious if you have done any algorithmic runtime analysis, e.g. how many individual calculations are required for finding a prime of a desired size. That number will determine if there is a realistic possibility of completing the algorithm in a reasonable time. As a mathematician you should be able to express this number as a formula. Show how many additions, subtractions, multiplications, divisions, etc., there are.

Afterwards, the next step would be breaking down those individual calculations into to small chunks that a computer is capable of executing. There are many known algorithms for that depending on the calculation, but they may also take a very long time to run.

Only if the required run time is small enough would a sane person begin to program. I think coming up with that formula would be the first step in showing you have something without revealing the exact details, plus let a programmer know if it's possible to actually finish the calculations in a lifetime.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by a1call

I only mentioned Mills' formula to point out formulas can generate all primes and there is no proof that no formula will do so. Not knowing the constant is irrelevant to the the fact that there is no proof that there can be no formula that can generate all primes.

Idiot. "no proof that there can be no formula". Double negative.

Such formulae are well known. See, e.g. Paulo Ribenboim's book.
But they are useless for computational purposes.

Stop making ridiculous claims that you can not support. You are exhibiting classic crank behavior.

[a1call]

To the party who sent me a private message.
Message received. I leave in Eastern time zone. I will reply to your message later today, likely in the evening.
Thank you.

[a1call]

Originally Posted by Mark Rose

I am not one of the resident math heads, so I have no business there. However, I am curious if you have done any algorithmic runtime analysis, e.g. how many individual calculations are required for finding a prime of a desired size. That number will determine if there is a realistic possibility of completing the algorithm in a reasonable time. As a mathematician you should be able to express this number as a formula. Show how many additions, subtractions, multiplications, divisions, etc., there are.

Afterwards, the next step would be breaking down those individual calculations into to small chunks that a computer is capable of executing. There are many known algorithms for that depending on the calculation, but they may also take a very long time to run.

Only if the required run time is small enough would a sane person begin to program. I think coming up with that formula would be the first step in showing you have something without revealing the exact details, plus let a programmer know if it's possible to actually finish the calculations in a lifetime.

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 10^10000000000. 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 10^10000000000. 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.

[Gordon]

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 10^10000000000. 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.

As per the CEMPLLA charlatan, it's time to

PUT UP OR PUSH OFF

I call this a steaming pile of