My Math Forum A Video claims Euler's Identity finds prime pattern

 Number Theory Number Theory Math Forum

 August 16th, 2017, 02:32 AM #21 Math Team     Joined: Jul 2011 From: North America, 42nd parallel Posts: 3,372 Thanks: 234 If $\ \ 5 \ \$ was not a prime then all primes greater than $\ \ 3 \ \$ would be of the form $\ \ 6n + 1 \ \$ Unfortunately , $\ \ 5 \ \$ is prime.
 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.
 August 29th, 2017, 09:26 AM #23 Senior Member   Joined: Mar 2015 From: England Posts: 204 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.
 August 29th, 2017, 09:29 AM #24 Senior Member   Joined: Mar 2015 From: England Posts: 204 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.
August 29th, 2017, 10:40 AM   #25
Math Team

Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,697
Thanks: 2681

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
 Originally Posted by agentredlum 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 $(6n-1,6n+1)$.

August 29th, 2017, 12:50 PM   #26
Math Team

Joined: Apr 2010

Posts: 2,780
Thanks: 361

Quote:
 Originally Posted by agentredlum 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 I understood that there were an infinite number of prime pairs $(p,p+2)$
That's still unproven.

August 29th, 2017, 01:36 PM   #27
Senior Member

Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 1,310
Thanks: 552

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Hoempa 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.

August 30th, 2017, 03:18 PM   #28
Math Team

Joined: Jul 2011
From: North America, 42nd parallel

Posts: 3,372
Thanks: 234

Quote:
 Originally Posted by v8archie 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 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.

Last edited by agentredlum; August 30th, 2017 at 03:49 PM.

 August 30th, 2017, 04:44 PM #29 Senior Member   Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 2,426 Thanks: 760 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?
August 30th, 2017, 05:22 PM   #30
Math Team

Joined: Jul 2011
From: North America, 42nd parallel

Posts: 3,372
Thanks: 234

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Maschke 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

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

### mario d exalto

Click on a term to search for related topics.
 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post HawkI Number Theory 17 April 20th, 2017 11:14 AM HawkI Math 5 June 27th, 2016 08:37 AM KenE Math 1 April 12th, 2016 02:05 PM Tau Complex Analysis 5 May 26th, 2015 04:34 AM greg1313 New Users 1 October 9th, 2012 02:35 AM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top