# Prime Geometry

Has anyone ever tried to make prime numbers into some kind of geometric equivalence? Such that prime numbers can be predicted through geometry?

I was thinking of a universe beginning with one 3D unit, and evolving from that unit. That all subsequent units would have a relation to the first unit, and prime numbers would be the sequence by which new units are made. I.E 3,5,7,11,13 where each prime represents the number of units created in a steady equal sequence of time related to the first unit. The first unit would be the base by which all other units are made.

The idea here is that we are the reality of Non-Existence. That reality would be a geometric definition, and it is an ongoing definition of non-Existence. Hence the universe is larger now than it was yesterday, and it grows by way of prime numbers in a geometric sense.

Last edited:
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Has anyone ever tried to make prime numbers into some kind of geometric equivalence? Such that prime numbers can be predicted through geometry?

I was thinking of a universe beginning with one 3D unit, and evolving from that unit. That all subsequent units would have a relation to the first unit, and prime numbers would be the sequence by which new units are made. I.E 3,5,7,11,13 where each prime represents the number of units created in a steady equal sequence of time related to the first unit. The first unit would be the base by which all other units are made.

The idea here is that we are the reality of Non-Existence. That reality would be a geometric definition, and it is an ongoing definition of non-Existence. Hence the universe is larger now than it was yesterday, and it grows by way of prime numbers in a geometric sense.

Yes indeed!

Have a go yourself, and as the numbering system increases, be amazed at what you find see if you find the 'missing-function'!

Last edited:
Zurtex
Homework Helper
Originally posted by meteor
Give a look to Ulam's spiral. It appeared in the cover of Scientific American
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeSpiral.html
Has anything ever been prroven from that. For example it would appear that where x is a natrual number 4x^2 + 11x + 7 can never be a prime number

matt grime
Homework Helper

Originally posted by ranyart
Yes indeed!

There is a Geometric model I have been tinkering for about 4yrs, herre is a link :http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.valletta/PRIME GRIDS.htm

The basic concept is that the normal 'Eratosthenes sieve for prime numbers', which is normally represented by a Static grid comprising of Columns and Rows, you cannot find any geometric pattern contained.
In the link I provide, you can see that if you create a Diagonal Grid where the following row moves on by a single factor(eleven below two)and so on for any amount of consecutive numbers(I have constructed a griding system of a couple of thousand numbers) then you start to see a geometric ordering.

What I really found of interest though I have refrained from putting onto the web, firstly as I did not see the significance, secondly my webpage skills are..well shamefully inaducate!

If you use genaral graphing techniques, where the second row moves across by one digit, keep repeating the numbers and graph starts to reveal some pretty nifty patterns, the whole system can be constructed into a grid where at 90% angles moving to the right(positive) after sometime the 'ZETA FUNCTION' becomes apparent!

Have a go yourself, and as the numbering system increases, be amazed at what you find see if you find the 'missing-function'!

Firstly,a s your grid is just a skew of a rectanuglar one, it can't be straight line patterns you mean, secondly, doing it for a few thousand digits isn't good enough, thirdly not sure I follow what you're trying to say, fourthly, how do you decide the Zeta functcion arises?

Last edited by a moderator:
HallsofIvy
Homework Helper
Originally posted by Zurtex
Has anything ever been prroven from that. For example it would appear that where x is a natrual number 4x^2 + 11x + 7 can never be a prime number

Well, since 4x^2+ 11x+ 7= (4x+7)(x+1) one would hardly need "Ulam's spiral" to prove it never prime!

Zurtex
Homework Helper
Originally posted by HallsofIvy
Well, since 4x^2+ 11x+ 7= (4x+7)(x+1) one would hardly need "Ulam's spiral" to prove it never prime!
Good point, doh!

But non the less, very intresting.

The prime spiral is interesting, but I was thinking more along the lines of 3D. A representation of the volume of reality. Such that only primes are used in an ever increasing volume, where any given prime represents the number of equal volumes used after the previous prime. The idea here is that each number of prime volumes would fit on a geometric shape that increases in size as each new prime is used. We would begin with one volume, then two, then three, five, seven, and so on. Such that seven represents seven equal volumes where each volume is the same size as the first volume.

It's like a 3D puzzle that fits only one way - The prime way. The first piece is the center piece, and subsequent pieces fit with flawless precision.

http://www.plichta.de/english/index.php [Broken]
i thought this might be interesting!!

Last edited by a moderator:
Janitor
Studentx

The local public library here actually has Plichta's book on their nonfiction shelf. I looked through it once, and shook my head. It is either pure crankery, or else Plichta is just having his fun pulling a fast one on gullible librarians. As I recall, some ill-defined concept of his that he calls a "photex" plays a big role in his ideas.

About 10 years ago I came across a library book by a mathematician, on the topic of math cranks who send their wild papers to universities. I wish I could remember the author's name. I think it started with a D. It was a fun read. There is a big supply of circle-squarers and suchlike out there.

Last edited:
HallsofIvy
Homework Helper
"Mathematical Cranks" by Dudley Underwood.

Actually, I started feeling a bit bad about laughing at some of these people who are clearly mentally unbalanced. Dudley Underwood was sued recently by one of the people mentioned in his book. I don't know the details but apparently the person was arguing that Underwood has misreprented what he had written. If I recall correctly the court ruled for the defendant on the grounds that "crank" was not well defined enough to be libel.

Janitor