My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Number Theory

Number Theory Number Theory Math Forum


Thanks Tree6Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
August 16th, 2017, 02:32 AM   #21
Math Team
 
agentredlum's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: North America, 42nd parallel

Posts: 3,372
Thanks: 233

If $ \ \ 5 \ \ $ was not a prime then all primes greater than $ \ \ 3 \ \ $ would be of the form $ \ \ 6n + 1 \ \ $

Unfortunately , $ \ \ 5 \ \ $ is prime.


agentredlum is offline  
 
August 16th, 2017, 05:22 AM   #22
Banned Camp
 
Joined: Dec 2012

Posts: 1,028
Thanks: 24

Primes are linear or bifidus: use 3n+1 and 3n+2



Last edited by complicatemodulus; August 16th, 2017 at 05:36 AM.
complicatemodulus is offline  
August 29th, 2017, 09:26 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: England

Posts: 199
Thanks: 5

After looking into trying to find a predictable sequential pattern for Primes in the last seven months or so, after all the research, I now believe that they are Statistical Distributions and that's how the Riemann Hypothesis works. This hypothesis is important in other areas of Maths.

There for I believe it would be impossible for Primes to have a sequential pattern, because that would make them not random.

And this may sound confrontational but people like Mario'D'Altaire who claim they have found the pattern are not helpful and are this generations circle squarers in the Maths world.
HawkI is offline  
August 29th, 2017, 09:29 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: England

Posts: 199
Thanks: 5

Also a quick way to explain the Ulamm's Spiral which turns into the Sack's Spiral he likes so much for his misleading video is this.

Pronic numbers 1 2 3 4

every 1 and 4 is not a multiple of 6. And then you start on from 4 as 1. This works because all Primes are close to multiples of 6.
HawkI is offline  
August 29th, 2017, 10:40 AM   #25
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,042
Thanks: 2344

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
Originally Posted by agentredlum View Post
If $ \ \ 5 \ \ $ was not a prime then all primes greater than $ \ \ 3 \ \ $ would be of the form $ \ \ 6n + 1 \ \ $
This sounds massively implausible to me.

I understood that there were an infinite number of prime pairs $(p,p+2)$ and these must necessarily be of the form $(6n-1,6n+1)$.
v8archie is offline  
August 29th, 2017, 12:50 PM   #26
Math Team
 
Joined: Apr 2010

Posts: 2,778
Thanks: 361

Quote:
Originally Posted by agentredlum View Post
If $ \ \ 5 \ \ $ was not a prime then all primes greater than $ \ \ 3 \ \ $ would be of the form $ \ \ 6n + 1 \ \ $
But if 5 wasn't prime then still 11 = 6 * 2 - 1 is prime right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by v8archie View Post
I understood that there were an infinite number of prime pairs $(p,p+2)$
That's still unproven.
Thanks from agentredlum
Hoempa is offline  
August 29th, 2017, 01:36 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 826
Thanks: 335

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoempa View Post
But if 5 wasn't prime then still 11 = 6 * 2 - 1 is prime right?
That is unclear.

If 5 is composite, then there exist positive integers x and y such that x * y = 5. Can you prove that neither x nor y nor any combination of x and y that is an integer divides evenly into 11?

Because we are in the dark about the arithmetic of x and y, such a proof strikes me as impossible.
JeffM1 is offline  
August 30th, 2017, 03:18 PM   #28
Math Team
 
agentredlum's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: North America, 42nd parallel

Posts: 3,372
Thanks: 233

Quote:
Originally Posted by v8archie View Post
This sounds massively implausible to me.
Well let me make it plausible

If $ \ \ 5 \ \ $ was composite it would have to be divisible by $ \ \ 2 \ \ $ , $ \ \ 3 \ \ $ or $ \ \ 4 \ \ $

$ 6 \ \ $ has common factors with $ \ \ 2 \ \ $ , $ \ \ 3 \ \ $ and $ \ \ 4 \ \ $

So ...

$ 6n + 5 \ \ $ would be factorable therefore not prime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoempa View Post
But if 5 wasn't prime then still 11 = 6 * 2 - 1 is prime right?
No Sir , IF $ \ \ 5 \ \ $ was composite there would be no primes of the form $ \ \ 6n - 1 $

$ 11 \ \ $ could be written as $ \ \ 6 \times 1 + 5 \ \ $ and then factored

The important word here is IF

Welcome back Hoempa , missed you buddy ...



Easy exercise...

Prove that $ \ \ 6 \times 12 + 5 \ \ $ is composite without multiplying it out to get $ \ \ 77 \ \ $

You are not allowed to use $ \ \ 77 \ \ $ in any way.
Thanks from Hoempa

Last edited by agentredlum; August 30th, 2017 at 03:49 PM.
agentredlum is offline  
August 30th, 2017, 04:44 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 1,641
Thanks: 415

It seems perfectly plausible to me. If 5 were not prime then I would be the Pope. That is a logically true statement. In fact every proposition would be true, including the one suggested by the OP.

I truly don't understand the sense of trying to reason mathematically on the assumption that 5 is not prime. What does that even mean? What are its prime factors?
Maschke is online now  
August 30th, 2017, 05:22 PM   #30
Math Team
 
agentredlum's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: North America, 42nd parallel

Posts: 3,372
Thanks: 233

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maschke View Post
It seems perfectly plausible to me. If 5 were not prime then I would be the Pope. That is a logically true statement. In fact every proposition would be true, including the one suggested by the OP.

I truly don't understand the sense of trying to reason mathematically on the assumption that 5 is not prime. What does that even mean? What are its prime factors?
What is the intention of this post?

I made a simple statement and then followed the implications.

You're mocking and that's not nice
agentredlum is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Number Theory

Tags
claims, euler, finds, identity, pattern, prime, video



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Prime Pattern Rediscovered HawkI Number Theory 17 April 20th, 2017 11:14 AM
I've had a go at trying to find a pattern to prime numbers HawkI Math 5 June 27th, 2016 08:37 AM
Theory of variable prime pattern KenE Math 1 April 12th, 2016 02:05 PM
Help with Euler's identity; i = 0?? Tau Complex Analysis 5 May 26th, 2015 04:34 AM
Video on prime numbers greg1313 New Users 1 October 9th, 2012 02:35 AM





Copyright © 2017 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.