Examples of Perceived Patterns Proven Wrong

  • Thread starter Thread starter erszega
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Patterns
AI Thread Summary
Examples of conjectures based on perceived patterns that were proven wrong include Fermat's conjecture about Fermat numbers being prime and the sequence of numbers like 31, 331, and 3331, which are all prime until 333333331, which is composite. Another example discussed is the idea that the product of consecutive primes plus one yields a prime, which holds true for several initial cases but fails at 30031. The conversation highlights the ease of jumping to incorrect conclusions based on observed patterns in mathematics and science. Participants express interest in both mathematical and scientific examples to illustrate this point. The discussion emphasizes the importance of critical thinking in evaluating perceived patterns.
erszega
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Dear All,

Could you give me examples of conjectures based on perceived patterns but proved to be wrong? Fermat numbers, with Fermat's conjecture that all Fermat numbers are primes, would be one example that I know of. I would appreciate elementary examples which are easy to understand.

The reason that I am asking for this is that I am doing some business studies, and I would like to persuade fellow students (and maybe the tutors), with examples, that it is very easy to jump to the wrong conclusions from perceived patterns.

Besides maths, any science example would also be welcome.

Regards
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
here is one:
31, 331, 3331, 33331, 333331, 3333331, 33333331 are all prime numbers. but 333333331 (this one has eight 3's) is composite.

333333331 = 17*19607843
 
Last edited:
murshid_islam said:
here is one:
31, 331, 3331, 33331, 333331, 3333331, 33333331 are all prime numbers. but 333333331 (this one has eight 3's) is composite.
Cool, haven't seen that before! :smile:
(Of course, what I found surprising with this, was that the pattern didn't break down earlier).
 
I had a little conjecture (easily proved false) when I was a schoolkid. The product of consecutive primes from 2 to any prime PLUS one was prime.

Pattern seemed true for :

1) 2 + 1 = 3
2) 2*3 + 1 = 7
3) 2*3*5+1 = 31
4) 2*3*5*7+1 = 211
5) 2*3*5*7*11+1 = 2311

but broke down for

2*3*5*7*11*13+1 = 30031 = 59*509

Higher order terms broke the pattern too (are the remainder all composite? That would be equally fascinating if true).

Oh well, it was fun for the day or so of excitement it afforded my young mind! :smile:

(BTW, the similar sequence for product of primes MINUS one breaks down much earlier).
 
Last edited:
Curious3141, Sloane's http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A018239 = {2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 31, 379, 1019, ...} is the list of primes such that the product of that prime and all lower primes, plus one, is itself prime.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CRGreathouse said:
Curious3141, Sloane's http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A018239 = {2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 31, 379, 1019, ...} is the list of primes such that the product of that prime and all lower primes, plus one, is itself prime.

Thanks for that. I never followed up on the sequence properly. :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top