New prime series?

  • #1
Loren Booda
3,119
4
Consider all primes

2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13...

and their products such that

2x3=6, 2x3x5=30, 2x3x5x7=210, 2x3x5x7x11=2310, 2x3x5x7x11x13=30030...

Is this latter series used in number theory?


Likewise, can one determine

lim (2+3+5+7+11+13...pn-1)/(2+3+5+7+11+13...pn)
n-->[oo]

in analogy to phi of Fibonacci numbers?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,967
19
This function is called the primorial function.
 
  • #3
Loren Booda
3,119
4
Thanks for the helpful hyperlink, Hurkyl.

Do you or anyone else have a hint about the second series I mentioned, the prime Fibonacci analog, and its limit:

lim (2+3+5+7+11+13...pn-1)/(2+3+5+7+11+13...pn)=?
n-->[oo]
 
  • #4
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,967
19
I'm not sure why you call it a Fibonacci analog...

Anyways, your fraction can be rewritten as:

[tex]
\frac{2 + 3 + \dots + p_{n-1}}{2 + 3 + \dots + p_n}
= 1 - \frac{p_n}{2 + 3 + \dots + p_n}
= 1 - \frac{1}{1 + \frac{2 + 3 + \dots + p_{n-1}}{p_n} }
[/tex]

So solving your limit reduces to finding

[tex]
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{2 + 3 + \dots + p_{n-1}}{p_n}
[/tex]

No proof of any value for this leaps to mind, however.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,967
19
I don't know how I managed not to read the big thread on TeX. :frown:

(PS you got some groupings wrong)
 
Last edited:
  • #6
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,275
40
Originally posted by Hurkyl
I don't know how I managed not to read the big thread on TeX. :frown:

(PS you got some groupings wrong)
Whoops! Feel free to edit my posts to reflect the correct TeX, or delete them altogether if you wish.

Also, please note that I don't intend to coerce people into using TeX if they are already comfy and happy with basic HTML.

- Warren
 
  • #7
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,967
19
I need to learn LaTeX eventually anyways, might as do it here where I can get some practical benefit out of it. :smile: The only LaTeX I've written thus far was for writing a tutorial to use some code I had written, so I haven't gotten to play with any of the math stuff!
 
  • #8
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,967
19
All right, here goes.

Define

[tex]
S(n) := \frac{2 + 3 + ... + q_n}{n}
[/tex]

where [tex]q_n[/tex] is the largest prime less than [tex]n[/tex]. I aim to prove:

[tex]
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} S(n) = \infty
[/tex]

From which we can deduce

[tex]
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \frac{2 + 3 + \dots + p_{n-1}}{p_n}
= \infty
[/tex]

and thus

[tex]
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \frac{2 + 3 + \dots + p_{n-1}}{2 + 3 + \dots + p_n}} = 1
[/tex]


It's clear that

[tex]
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} S(n) = \lim_{\substack{ n\rightarrow\infty \\ n~{\it even}} } S(n)
[/tex]

So I will restrict my attention to the case where [tex]n[/tex] is even.


The general approach is to estimate the numerator of [tex]S(2n)[/tex] by just looking at the primes in the range [tex][n, 2n)[/tex], and underestimating [tex]S(2n)[/tex] by [tex]n[/tex] times the number of primes in this range. To do this, I will use Chebyshev's bound on the prime counting function:

[tex]
\frac{7}{8} < \frac{ \pi(n) }{ \frac{n}{ln~n} } < \frac{9}{8}
[/tex]

So here goes:

[tex]
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
S(2n) &= \frac{2 + 3 + \dots + q_{2n}}{2n} > \frac{1}{2n} (\pi(2n) - \pi(n)) n \\
&> \frac{1}{2} \left (\frac{7}{8} \frac{2n}{ln~2n} - \frac{9}{8} \frac{n}{ln~n} \right)
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
[/tex]

A bit of elementary calculus proves that

[tex]
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{7}{8} \frac{2n}{ln~2n} - \frac{9}{8} \frac{n}{ln~n} \right) = \infty
[/tex]

And we're done.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Loren Booda
3,119
4
Hurkyl,

What experience do you have in math? You seem the most competant of a talented bunch here at PF. I hope you have seen the http://www.quantumdream.net at my website, my greatest accomplishment in mathematics.

LB
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,967
19
It's the LaTeX. It makes one look smarter. :smile:

I'm relatively fresh out of school, actually. I got my BS's in math and computer science two years ago, and started work this January. I've been hired as a mathematician, but my work thus far has been leaning more towards the programming.

However, math has been my hobby since I was little, so I have experienced a lot more than these credentials would suggest.
 
  • #11
Sorry.

But is this right then?

2p - 1 = p

2 - 1
4 - 1
8 - 1
32 - 1
128 - 1
2048 - 1


Am I wrong?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
Sariaht
357
0
p*p

A multiple between two primes is always right in the middle of two primes.

1, 2*1, 3, 2*2, 5, 2*3, 7, /, 3*3, 2*5, 11, /, 13 etc.

3*3 is right in the middle of 7 and 11
2*5 is right in the middle of 7 and 13
etc.

(11*3 is right in the middle of 37 and 29)


Erik-Olof Wallman
 
Last edited:
  • #13
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
43,021
970
But is this right then?

2<sup>p</sup> - 1 = p

2 - 1
4 - 1
8 - 1
32 - 1
128 - 1
2048 - 1


Am I wrong?

?? Yes, "2<sup>p</sup>-1= p" is wrong. In fact, the example you give show that :
4-1= 2<sup>2</sup>-1= 2 NOT 2.
8-1= 2<sup>3</sup>-1= 7 NOT 3, etc.

What exactly did you intend to say?
 
  • #14
suyver
248
0
I think he means to suggest that for every p, 2p-1 is a prime number? These are the so-called Mersenne-numbers and not all of them are prime. Although the largest prime numbers found to date are typically Mersenne-numbers, not every p generates a prime number. Simplest example: 211-1 is composite (23*89).
 
  • #15
Sariaht
357
0
Originally posted by suyver

That's what I, eh, he ment.

Best wishes Erik-Olof Wallman!
 
  • #16
Loren Booda
3,119
4
I had never seen that before
 
  • #17
suyver
248
0
Originally posted by Loren Booda
I had never seen that before

The Mersenne-numbers are very interesting because of the so-called Lucas-Lehmer Test, which is a (relatively) easy method of deciding if any Mersenne-number is prime or composite.
 
  • #18
Sariaht
357
0
p1 = 1
p2 = 2
p3 = 3
p4 = 5
p5 = 7
p6 = 11

All numbers within the serie:
p1*p2*p3*p4*...*pn +/- 1 are primenumbers.

In this serie, pn can be raised to all primenumbers between 1 and p; the serie will still be giving primes.

All primes, that in the serie are raised to zero, multiplied with eachother becomes the degree of conjugative.

I can prove that this equation is new:

p1*p2*p3*p4*...*pn = ( can't we call it p?, when n! = 1*2*3*...*n ? ).

It's to good to be old!
 
Last edited:
  • #19
suyver
248
0
Two observations:

1) The smallest prime number is 2, not 1.

2) p1*p2*p3*p4*p5*p6*p7 = 2*3*5*7*11*13*17 = 510510
510510 - 1 = 510509 = 8369 * 61

Sorry, but if things were so simple...
 
  • #20
Sariaht
357
0
I'm sorry

Originally posted by suyver
Sorry, but if things were so simple... [/B]

I'm sorry. Thanks anyway. but... wait.. 510 510 is a double query.

Maybe it don't work on them? THANX!!

by the way, 510 is 11111110 binary.

Maybe both sides don't have to be primes either? Or?
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Sariaht
357
0
The smallest primenumber is one.

Originally posted by suyver
The smallest prime number is 2, not 1.

That's not true, though.

1 is the smallest primenumber.
 
  • #22
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,967
19
1 is not a prime number.
 
  • #23
Sariaht
357
0
Originally posted by Hurkyl
1 is not a prime number.

förlåt mig. I Sverige säger vi:

Primtal är alla tal som bara är delbara med 1 och sig självt.

sorry. In Sweden we say:

Primes are all numbers that you only can divide with 1 and itself.

1/1 = 1

1/1 = 1
 
Last edited:
  • #24
suyver
248
0
Originally posted by Sariaht
In Sweden we say:

Primes are all number that you only can divide with 1 and itself.

This may be the case, but that is not the normally accepted definition of a prime number. Normally the smallest prime number is said to be 2...
 
  • #25
Sariaht
357
0
Originally posted by suyver
This may be the case, but that is not the normally accepted definition of a prime number. Normally the smallest prime number is said to be 2...

What about the equation?

What is your definition of a prime?
 
  • #26
suyver
248
0
Originally posted by Sariaht
What about the equation?

That makes no difference of course: 1*x = x for all x. So including your p1=1 doesn't change the fact that your equation is incorrect...

Originally posted by Sariaht
What is your definition of a prime?

The commonly accepted definition for a prime number is any number having no factor except itself and one. From this rule it follows that 1 is not a prime number, but 2 is.
 
  • #27
Sariaht
357
0
2*3 = 6 | +/- 1 | 5, 7

2*3*5 = 30 | +/- 1 | 29, 31

2*2*3 = 12 | +/- 1 | 11, 13

2*3*3 = 18 | +/- 1 | 17, 19

2*3*5*5 = 150 | +/- 1 | 149, 151

2*3*5*7*7 = 1470 | +/- 1 | 1469, 1471

allright.

Only one primesquare is aloud.

3*5*7*7 = 735 | +/- 2 | 733, 737
3*5*5*7 = 525 | +/- 2 | 523, 527
3*3*5*7 = 315 | +/- 2 | 313, 317
5*7*11 = 385 | +/- 2*3 | 379, 391
7*7 = 49 | +/- 30 | 19, 79

etc?
 
Last edited:
  • #28
suyver
248
0
Originally posted by Sariaht
2*3 = 6 5 7

2*3*5 = 30 29 31

2*2*3 = 12 11 13

2*3*3 = 18 17 19

2*3*5*5 = 150 149 151

2*3*5*7*7 = 1470 1469 1471

allright.

Only one primesquare is aloud.

You should really learn to write your ideas (or whatever they are) more clearly. I have NO IDEA what you are trying to say....
 
  • #29
Sariaht
357
0
Originally posted by suyver
You should really learn to write your ideas (or whatever they are) more clearly. I have NO IDEA what you are trying to say....


Were does my equation error?
 
Last edited:
  • #30
suyver
248
0
The prime numbers have a RANDOM distribution over the natural numbers. You will not succeed in finding such an (easy or not) algorithm to always generate a new prime number from a set of already known ones. However, the numbers tend to become large, making it difficult to see that they are not prime.

If you find a simple algorithm and PROVE that this algorithm works for at least the first 100 prime numbers, then I will look at it again. But like this it's becomming a waste of my time: you're just guessing new algorithms without any idea about why they should work in the first place...
 
Last edited:
  • #31
Sariaht
357
0
Originally posted by suyver

(uip = un-included prime in serie)

Yes. I'll check. Sorry... (only one square is aloud).

No prime is aloud to have a negative conjugate.

.................................uip.(pp)...prime or square
2........................= 2.....+-1............1 | 3
3........................= 3.....+-2............1 | 5
2*2......................= 4.....+-1............3 | 5
2*3......................= 6.....+-1............5 | 7
2*3*3....................= 18....+-1...........17 | 19
3*3......................= 9.....+-2............7 | 11
2*2*3....................= 12....+-1...........11 | 13
2*5......................= 10....+-3............7 | 13
3*5......................= 15....+-2...........13 | 17
3*5*7....................= 105...+-2..........103 | 107
2*3*7....................= 42....+-5...........37 | 47
5*7*7....................= 245...+-6..........239 | 251
3*7*7....................= 147...+-10.........137 | 157
2*7*7....................= 98....+-15..........83 | 113
2*5*7....................= 70....+-3...........67 | 73
5*5*7 ..................= 175...+-6..169(square) | 181
5*7......................= 35....+-6...........29 | 41
2*3*5*7*11...............= 2310..+-1.........2309 | 2311
The numbers in the serie must be a prime (3 5 7 11 are four numbers)
2*5*11...................= 110...+-21..........89 | 131
5*7*11...................= 385...+-6..........379 | 391

3*7*11...................= 231...+-10....17*13(?) | 241
(maybe this has got something to do with that diff (3,7) = diff (7,11)
is not a prime, and that diff(x,y) cannot be a non-prime twice in a row?)

3*5*11...................= 165...+-14.........151 | 179
11*5.....................= 55....+-42..........13 | 97


Damit... Who cares if it works anyway: the permutations becomes to many.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
Sariaht
357
0
Originally posted by suyver

In the middle of two conjugative primes is a third number oftenly divideable
with 6.

Can two such queries have the same factor-sum if the sum is a prime?

2*2 = 4 | 2 + 2 = 4

2*3 = 6 | 2 + 3 = 5

2*2*3 = 12 | 2 + 2 + 3 = 7

2*3*3 = 18 | 2 + 3 + 3 = 8

2*3*5 = 30 | 2 + 3 + 5 = 10

2*3*7 = 42 | 2 + 7 + 3 = 12

2*2*3*5 = 60 | 2 + 2 + 3 + 5 = 12
 
Last edited:
  • #33
suyver
248
0
  • #34
Sariaht
357
0
Originally posted by suyver
Have you read this thread? You might find some of the contents interesting...


No, i have not read his thread. What does he mean?

But if this was true, you could find alot higher primes alot easier.
 
  • #35
suyver
248
0
No: this is indeed a function that generates all the primes. But it is a function with 26 parameters that can vary.... Computationally very intensive!
 

Suggested for: New prime series?

Replies
5
Views
403
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
473
Replies
2
Views
696
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
Top