August 14th, 2017, 01:01 AM  #1 
Banned Camp Joined: Dec 2012 Posts: 1,028 Thanks: 24  Proof Primes are not "random"
Is there any Official Proof that Primes are not "Random" numbers ?

August 14th, 2017, 04:46 AM  #2 
Member Joined: Aug 2017 From: United Kingdom Posts: 93 Thanks: 26 
They are clearly deterministic rather than truly random  as soon as you've defined the ring of integers, the primes and their distribution are completely determined. You probably didn't mean "truly random" when you said "random", but the issue is that what you've asked is incredibly ambiguous. Until you make your statement precise, it's meaningless to ask if there's a proof of it. 
August 14th, 2017, 04:56 AM  #3  
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2014 From: Glasgow Posts: 2,049 Thanks: 680 Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions  Quote:
There's certainly metrics about the distribution and rate of change of primes as you look to higher numbers, but as far as I know there is no deterministic function $\displaystyle f(n)$ that can predict the sequence of primes; current algorithms that determine prime numbers are NP in complexity.  
August 14th, 2017, 05:00 AM  #4 
Banned Camp Joined: Dec 2012 Posts: 1,028 Thanks: 24 
Is also clear to me that primes follows a fixed pattern, so they are not "ramdomly" placed. So I would like to know if, and where to find it, there is a official proof. I'm playing with my Complicate Numbers and I saw that applying a function to Integers or to Primes will produce a very similar output behavior, so is clear they are not "randomly" placed or the final behavior must be partially or fully different from integer's one. Thanks Ciao Stefano 
August 14th, 2017, 05:19 AM  #5 
Senior Member Joined: Dec 2015 From: Earth Posts: 154 Thanks: 21 
A sequence $\displaystyle \; f(n)=PRIME \; $ exists

August 14th, 2017, 09:18 AM  #6  
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2014 From: Glasgow Posts: 2,049 Thanks: 680 Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions  Of course the sequence exists. What I said was that there is no function that determines the sequence in a deterministic way. Specifically, all algorithms that exist to compute f(n) are NP algorithms. Quote:
If you mean "has a predictable distribution" then yes, (as far as I'm aware...) there are metrics that characterize the distribution of primes and allow you to make predictions such as what the number of primes are within a certain interval. However, if you mean "the function to determine the sequence of primes is deterministic" then my question to you is this: Also...  Who's saying that they are "randomly placed"? What do you mean by that?  
August 14th, 2017, 09:40 AM  #7 
Member Joined: Aug 2017 From: United Kingdom Posts: 93 Thanks: 26  I think you're a little confused. Sequences of real numbers (such as $f(n)$ here) are by definition functions from the naturals to the reals. I also don't see the relevance of whether the algorithms are NP: whether something is deterministic is not dependent on how easy it is to determine it in practice...

August 14th, 2017, 10:13 AM  #8 
Senior Member Joined: May 2016 From: USA Posts: 785 Thanks: 312 
This whole thread seems to have been destined from the start to generate confusion, which is not surprising given that complicatemodulus initiated it. Obviously the function f(n) = the nth prime exists. It relates positive integers to positive integers. (Why involve the reals?) f(1) = 2. f(2) = 3. f(3) = 5. And so on. But so what? The further question of whether that function is "random" or "deterministic" depends on how those words are defined. Moreover, a general formula for the function is not known, which makes it difficult or perhaps impossible to analyze the function in terms of those definitions. If someone defines what unique properties a "random" function has or what unique properties a "deterministic" function has and also specifies the properties of f(n) = the nth prime, then we can have a sensible conversation. Until then, it is a will of the wisp. 
August 14th, 2017, 10:16 AM  #9  
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,527 Thanks: 364  Quote:
 
August 14th, 2017, 10:57 AM  #10  
Senior Member Joined: May 2016 From: USA Posts: 785 Thanks: 312  Quote:
If so, the answer is "of course, we can" I doubt, however, that is what the intended question is. My point was that without understanding the question, we can spin our wheels forever. I suspect the question is whether there is a simpler pattern to the primes than a list of the primes themselves and whether that pattern can be expressed in a formula.  

Tags 
primes, proof, random 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Elementary proof of the 1D simple random walk "infinite crossing" theorem  Bromster  Algebra  0  December 24th, 2015 10:09 PM 
how "random" are online "random" spinners?  skynet  Probability and Statistics  1  June 18th, 2014 12:26 PM 
A "simple" application of dirac delta "shift theorem"...help  SedaKhold  Calculus  0  February 13th, 2012 11:45 AM 
"recurrent" mersenne primes  brunojo  Number Theory  70  June 15th, 2009 04:37 PM 