Aren't There Any Formulas for Prime Numbers?

  • #1
bagasme
75
9
Hello all,

We know that following formulas failed to produced all prime numbers for any given whole number ##n##:

  1. ##f(n) = n^2 - n - 41##, failed for ##n = 41~(f = 1681)##
  2. ##g(n) = 2^(2^n) + 1##, failed for ##n = 5~(g = 4,294,967,297)##
  3. ##m(n) = 2^n - 1##, failed for ##n = 67~(m = 147,573,952,588,676,412,927)##
The question is: Are there any formulas that produce prime numbers for any given ##n## (without non-prime results), or aren't they?

Bagas
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
2022 Award
23,790
15,403
Hello all,

We know that following formulas failed to produced all prime numbers for any given whole number ##n##:

  1. ##f(n) = n^2 - n - 41##, failed for ##n = 41~(f = 1681)##
  2. ##g(n) = 2^(2^n) + 1##, failed for ##n = 5~(g = 4,294,967,297)##
  3. ##m(n) = 2^n - 1##, failed for ##n = 67~(m = 147,573,952,588,676,412,927)##
The question is: Are there any formulas that produce prime numbers for any given ##n## (without non-prime results), or aren't they?

Bagas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_for_primes
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron, kith and fresh_42
  • #4
pbuk
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
4,049
2,380
I see the floor function recursivemethod interested.
I'm not sure what this means.
In that case, why ##f_1## need to be irrational?
Look at the denominators of the terms of the series expansion. What do you see?

Also, look again at the derivation of ##f_1##. Do you think this is really an interesting method of generating primes, or just a method of encoding primes that are already known?

I provide a new constant ##P_{buk} = 0.203005000700011...##. Derivation of the related prime generating formula is left to the reader.
 
  • #5
36,251
13,309
There is no useful formula for primes known, i.e. a formula that could be used to find new prime numbers more efficiently than clever trial and error.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
pbuk
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
4,049
2,380
Did you mean to include the word "known" in that sentence?
 
  • #7
36,251
13,309
It's always the current status of knowledge, a future proof of a nonexistence of such a formula would be really remarkable, but I added it explicitly for clarity.
 
  • #8
Klystron
Gold Member
1,047
1,572
Ignoring computational complexity for the sake of discussion, use of various 'sieves' seems to tell us that the interval between successive prime numbers should increase as we employ successively larger divisors. Then we encounter twin primes where the next higher odd number is also prime. Primes have fascinated me since I learned multiplication.

As pbuk and other posters have described, we do not so much generate prime numbers as discover them; like a miner finding a gold nugget in the next pan of gravel. As a student I attempted to compare intervals among prime numbers to square numbers, triangle, Catalan, and other sequences with instructive but inconclusive results.
 

Suggested for: Aren't There Any Formulas for Prime Numbers?

  • Last Post
2
Replies
56
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
110
Replies
1
Views
344
Replies
1
Views
261
Replies
5
Views
497
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
942
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
531
Replies
26
Views
721
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
2K
Top