A I think I discovered a pattern for prime numbers

Click For Summary
A user claims to have discovered a new pattern for prime numbers and developed a program that successfully identifies all primes up to 70 million, although it crashed due to RAM limitations. They believe the pattern is unique and have not found any existing documentation on it. However, responses indicate skepticism, suggesting that the pattern aligns with established mathematical concepts, particularly the prime counting function. The discussion concludes with a warning that claims of solving significant mathematical conjectures, like the Riemann Hypothesis, are unlikely to be valid. The thread is ultimately closed due to the improbability of the user's claims fitting established mathematical formats.
hotAdaptness
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
I think I discovered a pattern for prime numbers
I wrote a program that implements the pattern and finds the primes automatically. It worked up to 70 million then it crashed because program holds data in RAM so it can be fixed. It found all the primes up to 70 million and found no exception. I won't explain the pattern because its so complicated and its not officially mine. I couldn't find any documents about this pattern and I think its a new thing. What should I do?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
hotAdaptness said:
Summary: I think I discovered a pattern for prime numbers

I wrote a program that implements the pattern and finds the primes automatically. It worked up to 70 million then it crashed because program holds data in RAM so it can be fixed. It found all the primes up to 70 million and found no exception. I won't explain the pattern because its so complicated and its not officially mine. I couldn't find any documents about this pattern and I think its a new thing. What should I do?
The pattern you have found is
$$
\pi(x) \approx \operatorname{Li}(x)=\displaystyle{\int_2^x \dfrac{dt}{\log t}}
$$

Anything else can frankly be considered wrong. See
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/the-history-and-importance-of-the-riemann-hypothesis/
and if you are interested in details
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/the-extended-riemann-hypothesis-and-ramanujans-sum/.

Since it is highly unlikely that you have solved the Riemann conjecture, and even if, it certainly won't fit our format, this thread is closed.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
I have been insisting to my statistics students that for probabilities, the rule is the number of significant figures is the number of digits past the leading zeros or leading nines. For example to give 4 significant figures for a probability: 0.000001234 and 0.99999991234 are the correct number of decimal places. That way the complementary probability can also be given to the same significant figures ( 0.999998766 and 0.00000008766 respectively). More generally if you have a value that...

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K