How many prime numbers have we actually solved

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of prime numbers, specifically questioning the concept of their infinitude and the methods used to identify them. Participants explore various mathematical proofs and sequences related to primes, while expressing differing opinions on the existence and identification of prime numbers.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the assertion that there are infinitely many primes, suggesting that higher numbers may not be prime.
  • One participant references Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes, explaining that any finite list of primes can be extended by constructing a new number that is not divisible by any of the listed primes.
  • There is a suggestion that further primes might require a different formula to be fully contained within existing sequences.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about the reliability of current mathematical approaches to primes, indicating a belief that there may be gaps in the identification of primes.
  • A challenge is posed to prove that 139 is prime using the Euclid-Mullin sequence, indicating a desire for practical demonstration of theoretical concepts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus reached on the nature of prime numbers or the effectiveness of existing mathematical methods. The discussion remains unresolved, with competing perspectives on the existence and identification of primes.

Contextual Notes

Some claims about the nature of primes depend on specific definitions and assumptions, and the discussion includes unresolved mathematical inquiries regarding the completeness of certain sequences in capturing all primes.

evolvehuman
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
how many prime numbers have we actually solved,,, how can we say that there is no end to prime when we can't even count that high, i think sooner or later all numbers higher than primegod would be not prime
 
Physics news on Phys.org


evolvehuman said:
how can we say that there is no end to prime when we can't even count that high, i think sooner or later all numbers higher than primegod would be not prime

The usual way of proing that there are infinitely many primes is Euclid's proof: if the only primes were (p1, p2, ..., pk) then P = p1 * p2 * ... * pk + 1 cannot be divisible by any of p1, ..., pk, and so P is divisible by a prime other than p1, ..., pk.

One technique you might like: the Fermat numbers 2^(2^n) + 1 are pairwise relatively prime, so each contains at least one prime not previously occurring as a Fermat number divisor.
 


i still believe the math is going to egg
 


evolvehuman said:
i still believe the math is going to egg

Hmm... I don't think so. At least I'm not going to hold my breath.
 


further prime should have a different formula or all prime won't be contained
 


unless we are just trying to find any prime then there will be holes in the grid
 


evolvehuman said:
further prime should have a different formula or all prime won't be contained

Do you mean that the Euclid-Mullin sequence, Sloane's A000945, doesn't contain all primes?

That problem is still open. If you think you have a proof, try to write it up.
 


just being dumb prove 139 is prime by the e-m sequence for me please, ...
a(1) = 2, a(n+1) _{k=1..n} a(k) + 1
 


This is ridiculous. I am closing the thread.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K