Are prime numbers truly random or is there a hidden pattern?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the nature of prime numbers and their perceived randomness versus potential hidden patterns. Participants reference the Riemann Conjecture and the role of physicists in number theory, particularly regarding quantum chaotic systems and random matrices. The consensus indicates that while some patterns may appear in prime numbers, no definitive proof exists to confirm these patterns as universally applicable. The conversation emphasizes the complexity of proving any consistent behavior in prime numbers, aligning with established mathematical principles.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Riemann Conjecture
  • Familiarity with quantum chaotic systems
  • Knowledge of random matrices in mathematics
  • Basic principles of number theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the Riemann Conjecture on prime number distribution
  • Explore the role of quantum chaotic systems in mathematical proofs
  • Study random matrix theory and its applications in number theory
  • Investigate recent advancements in prime number research and patterns
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, number theorists, physicists, and anyone interested in the intersection of mathematics and physics, particularly in the study of prime numbers and their properties.

Imparcticle
Messages
572
Reaction score
4
Here is a cool article about a pattern to the procession of prime numbers:

http://www.nature.com/nsu/030317/030317-13.html

Enjoy! :smile:
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I could be wrong but surely this could never stand up as serious mathematics. There being an infinite number of primes trying to spot how likely differences are is surely like trying to spot how likely the digit 7 occurs in Pi in base 10...
 
Well, if Reinmann decided to make a conjecture about the randomness of prime numbers, and it is taken seriously, then I am sure it is a serious kind of mathematics. Also, I believe the seriousness of a subject is subjective.
 
As with a lot of popular science articles on mathematics it omits many details and gives a false impression. If I were a number theorist I'd be vaguely bemused at the 'hey look you guys, *physicists* can do it, why can't you' feeling in it. As anyone who knows about the recent interest in the zeta function will tell you, it is high'y unlikely that any number theory techniques extant will solve the Riemann Conjecture, and it is felt that physicists may have the most important input (quantum chaotical systems and random matrices, perhaps). This is not new or surprising. What is surprising is that Physics has had so little input in pure mathematics in the last 80 years compared to the previous few thousand.

And it is not true, in some sense, to say that the primes are not random, as we can prove a statement that says, in effect, that they are as random as you get, and that any statement that is true for a *random* (in a carefully stated sense) set of natural numbers is true of the primes.

Anyway, Zurtex, this area is an important one.
 
How carefully did you read the article? The people quoted do not claim they have found a pattern. They say they have found what looks like a pattern. They certainly do not claim to have proved that that pattern will always be true. I suspect that such a proof would be as difficult as proving all of the other possible patterns in prime numbers.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
3K