mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Miscellaneous Math

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-07-20, 14:14   #34
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

26×131 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse View Post
Can you prove that this always happens -- that for large enough n, there is a prime p < n such that 2n - p is composite?
I think this is a misunderstanding 15 is equidistant from 13 and 17 but it's not prime is what i'm saying so we need rules to stop finding solutions like this. the rules that normally slow down prime searching work but then what's the point of the prime equidistant from 2 primes part since it wouldn't help that.
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-20, 14:30   #35
3.14159
 
3.14159's Avatar
 
May 2010
Prime hunting commission.

24×3×5×7 Posts
Default

Quote:
well if it shows all primes under it could we then find all primes under a given even number ? try it with 164200 for me.
You mean, if all primes eventually decompose into sums of 2s and 3s? Yes.

164200 = 23039 + 141161

Decomposing it into sums of 2s and 3s is easy:

23039 = 2(5548) + 3(2648) + 2(1523) + 3(311) + 2(10)
141161 = 2(34267) + 3(20264) + 2(4267) + 3(1068) + 2(20) + 3(5) + 2(1)

The decomposition of 164200 into 2s and 3s: 2(5548) + 3(2648) + 2(1523) + 3(311) + 2(10) + 2(34267) + 3(20264) + 2(4267) + 3(1068) + 2(20) + 3(5) + 2(1).

To check if it adds up: Dammit, 40 short. Checking sums... I see the problem:

Here's the right decomposition.
2(5548) + 3(2648) + 2(1523) + 3(311) + 2(10) + 2(34267) + 3(20264) + 2(4267) + 3(1068) + 2(40) + 3(5) + 2(1).

Decomposing primes into sums of 2s and 3s:
2: 2
3: 3
5: 2+3
7: 2+2+3
11: 3+3+2
13: 3+3+2+2
17: 3(5) + 2
19: 3(5) + 2(2)
23: 3(7) + 2
29: 3(7) + 2(4)
31: 3(9) + 2(2)
37: 2(14) + 3(3)
41: 2(16) + 3(3)
43: 3(11) + 2(5)
47: 2(19) + 3(3)
By the way, is this silly conjecture proven? (Every prime can be written as a sum of 2s and 3s.) And, who thought of it prior to me? I stumbled upon this quite a while ago.
I think I can generalize it to: Every integer greater than 3 can be written as a sum of 2s and 3s.

Last fiddled with by 3.14159 on 2010-07-20 at 14:40
3.14159 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-20, 14:41   #36
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

26×131 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3.14159 View Post
You mean, if all primes eventually decompose into sums of 2s and 3s? Yes.

164200 = 23039 + 141161

Decomposing it into sums of 2s and 3s is easy:

23039 = 2(5548) + 3(2648) + 2(1523) + 3(311) + 2(10)
141161 = 2(34267) + 3(20264) + 2(4267) + 3(1068) + 2(20) + 3(5) + 2(1)

The decomposition of 164200 into 2s and 3s: 2(5548) + 3(2648) + 2(1523) + 3(311) + 2(10) + 2(34267) + 3(20264) + 2(4267) + 3(1068) + 2(20) + 3(5) + 2(1).

To check if it adds up: Dammit, 40 short. Checking sums... I see the problem:

Here's the right decomposition.
2(5548) + 3(2648) + 2(1523) + 3(311) + 2(10) + 2(34267) + 3(20264) + 2(4267) + 3(1068) + 2(40) + 3(5) + 2(1).
I mean 164200 = 23039 + 141161

23039 = 10+23029(prime)
10 = 7+3
141161= 4+1411573(prime)
4=2+2

so in a way yes except finding more primes under the number along the way.

even if you have a od dinstead of a prime as long as it can be brought down to a even number idf Goldbachs conjecture is right you could eventually find most primes by turning a row even then prime then a even odd then even then prime again etc. trying to get most primes out.

Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 2010-07-20 at 14:44
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-20, 15:02   #37
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

135338 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3.14159 View Post
By the way, is this silly conjecture proven? (Every prime can be written as a sum of 2s and 3s.) And, who thought of it prior to me? I stumbled upon this quite a while ago.
I think I can generalize it to: Every integer greater than 3 can be written as a sum of 2s and 3s.
Sylvester had a general solution to the problem of deciding the least integer N(A, B) such that all n > N could be represented as aA + bB. Your particular case was probably known to the ancients.
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-20, 15:34   #38
3.14159
 
3.14159's Avatar
 
May 2010
Prime hunting commission.

24·3·5·7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Sylvester had a general solution to the problem of deciding the least integer N(A, B) such that all n > N could be represented as aA + bB. Your particular case was probably known to the ancients.
The ancients?
3.14159 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-20, 15:48   #39
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

3×1,993 Posts
Default

YA RLY.

2 and 3 can be represented in that form, so for any n >= 4 just take the representation of n-2 and add a two. If you want at least one of each, start at 7 and 8 (and check 2 through 6). None of that was out of reach of the ancient Greeks or even Egyptians.

Last fiddled with by CRGreathouse on 2010-07-20 at 15:49
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-20, 16:07   #40
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

203008 Posts
Default

I know this is kinda out there but since prime + even = odd(or prime a subtype almost) and

prime + odd = even is it fair to say that if a number can't be expressed as the sum of 2 primes it can't be represented with even or odd numbers as well hence it should not exist ?

edit: primes>=3

Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 2010-07-20 at 16:23
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-20, 18:09   #41
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

3×1,993 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by science_man_88 View Post
prime + odd = even is it fair to say that if a number can't be expressed as the sum of 2 primes it can't be represented with even or odd numbers as well hence it should not exist ?

edit: primes>=3
No. The potential counterexample to Goldbach's conjecture is a number n such that for p = 3, 5, 7, 11, ..., precprime(n), 2n - p is composite. We don't think there is such a number, but parity considerations don't rule it out.
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-20, 18:44   #42
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

100000110000002 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse View Post
No. The potential counterexample to Goldbach's conjecture is a number n such that for p = 3, 5, 7, 11, ..., precprime(n), 2n - p is composite. We don't think there is such a number, but parity considerations don't rule it out.
I know nothing about that lol.

please explain what the added 2n-p means ? I ran precprime for n = 1,20 and If i'm right it's the most recent prime found. what does the 2n-p mean ?

Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 2010-07-20 at 18:54
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-20, 19:13   #43
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

175B16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by science_man_88 View Post
what does the 2n-p mean ?
?

n is a positive integer, p is a prime number, and 2n-p is two times n minus p.

precprime(n) is the largest prime <= n.

Last fiddled with by CRGreathouse on 2010-07-20 at 19:14
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-20, 21:39   #44
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

26×131 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse View Post
?

n is a positive integer, p is a prime number, and 2n-p is two times n minus p.

precprime(n) is the largest prime <= n.
Okay good information. If n is half c then it becomes c-n(the n in my equation) which should come to the top of the 2 possible primes in my equations(according to your code).

Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 2010-07-20 at 21:49
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Goldbach Conjecture MattcAnderson MattcAnderson 4 2021-04-04 19:21
Factorial and Goldbach conjecture. MisterBitcoin MisterBitcoin 17 2018-01-29 00:50
Goldbach's weak conjecture MattcAnderson MattcAnderson 19 2017-03-21 18:17
Goldbach's conjecture Citrix Puzzles 3 2005-09-09 13:58

All times are UTC. The time now is 00:36.


Sat Jul 17 00:36:08 UTC 2021 up 49 days, 22:23, 1 user, load averages: 0.93, 1.05, 1.26

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.