Freeman Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 I am sending my friend an email, but I need to draw up the equation. It is a sigma equation! Anyone know the code for this???
Freeman Posted July 16, 2004 Author Posted July 16, 2004 ITs a REALLY important equation guys! I need to find out how to make an image of it! Pronto!
Dave Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 Use LaTeX - it can typeset more or less anything mathematical.
Freeman Posted July 16, 2004 Author Posted July 16, 2004 Hey, I just figured out a formula for prime numbers. Who do I contact for an award? I know the nobel Prize doesn't have a mathmatics field. Who DO I contact???
Dave Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 Go to a math professor at some university. Just make sure your proof is correct first otherwise you're going to get laughed at.
Dave Posted July 16, 2004 Posted July 16, 2004 I was thinking the same thing. I highly suspect a flaw in the proof.
Freeman Posted July 16, 2004 Author Posted July 16, 2004 I can't, oh say, email someone at the nobel prize foundation, or something of the sort? If I weren't so paranoid, I'd show you guys...
Freeman Posted July 16, 2004 Author Posted July 16, 2004 Oh, and it works up to 1000. I got lazy and didn't check after that, but I suspect it works...
Dave Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 Unless you can conclusively prove that your formula works for all prime numbers, it's not a proof.
bloodhound Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 i assume that freeman is talking about a prime number generating function. "Legendre showed that there is no rational algebraic function which always gives primes. In 1752, Goldbach showed that no polynomial with integer coefficients can give a prime for all integer values" taken from http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Prime-GeneratingPolynomial.html and if it works to 1000 then i am sure you can use mathematical induction somehow
Freeman Posted July 17, 2004 Author Posted July 17, 2004 Ohhh man, I wanna tell you guys... once I get a patent, I'll tell you! BTW, it works up to 10000 (that's as far as I have gotten thus far!)
NSX Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 Like dave said, unless you can prove your formula for all primes in general, it can't be called a proof. If all you're doing is hard number crunching [like the GIMPS project], then it's not really a proof; just finding more primes. I'm interested in your claim though ... any hints as to how you are going about these results? Mersenne numbers? or maybe Chebyshev said it, and I say it again. There is always a prime between n and 2n... [edit] That's a nice link you posted there bloodhound.
JaKiri Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 You can't patent pure mathematical algorithms, as far as I know. And you haven't got this 'proof' thing down, have you. You have to prove it for all possible numbers, not just 1,000, 10,000 or whatever. Because of the nature of infinity, with number crunching, you're not actually decreasing the possibility of it being wrong, you know.
Freeman Posted July 17, 2004 Author Posted July 17, 2004 I guess it would be a conjecture then! As far as hints...the equation itself doesn't find primes! It so freacken ingenious!
Freeman Posted July 17, 2004 Author Posted July 17, 2004 OK, I emailed a professor at my local college. After that, what? Assuming I am still correct...
wolfson Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 Assuming I am still correct... Then there will be a meeting of great prof's to all talk and see if it correct. and then.......... well maybe on tv. Or get some king of an award. But i'd put it on scienceforums on here, remember you still wrote it first so its yours, and you'll have all your workings out.
Freeman Posted July 17, 2004 Author Posted July 17, 2004 Hmmm... all right, just remember: patent pendin! And I thought of it first! I'll sue you! [math]\big_{n=2}^\infty gn[/math] (this is 'a') where g is every positive prime integer, beginning with 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, and 13. You do not find prime numbers, but nonprime numbers! And then [math]\big_{n=2}^\infty n^n'[/math](this is 'b') Where n' is every number beginning with 2, irrelevant to what n is. So, the set of all positive integers minus the set of {a+b}, that is to say, the numbers found in the solution of a and b.
Freeman Posted July 17, 2004 Author Posted July 17, 2004 Agghh!!! It does not work!!! Hold on a second! The equation of 'a' and Equation for 'b' The math font does not work!!!
Freeman Posted July 17, 2004 Author Posted July 17, 2004 [math]\sum_{n=2}^\infty gn[/math] is 'a' and [math]\sum_{n=2}^\infty n^n'[/math] is 'b'
Sayonara Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 You can't patent an academic formula. Any original intellectual work your create is automatically protected by copyright law, no matter what medium you first record it in.
Dave Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 LaTeX renders fine. [math]n = \sum_{n=2}^{\infty} gn[/math] etc. You almost certainly need to define that function in a much more rigorous mathematical fashion before it's taken seriously. I don't really understand what you're getting at atm.
Freeman Posted July 18, 2004 Author Posted July 18, 2004 g is every prime integer starting with 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, and 13. You plug in 2-100 for each prime, and the numbers not found are prime. You add those numbers to the list and do the same for the next 100 numbers. I cannot do it too fast soo, I need a computer to do it. But anways...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now