A Law of Primes

[rktpro]

I discovered a Law for Prime Numbers.

 

I have for the couple of years searched ways of finding a law which will determine the prime numbers. As we all know, the law which will allow us to predict prime numbers are unknown. Unfortunately, today, I cannot still offer any remarkable law which will determine prime numbers, but I did find another law for prime numbers along the way.

 

The Law States: The sum of all numbers which make up a prime will give you a number which will never be allowed to be a multiple of 3, nor do any digits ever make the sum of 12 to allow 3 to be divided, with the only acception of the the second prime number that is 3. If after you have taken the sum of all your numbers and you end up with a two-digit number, you continue taking the sum of the value until you have only one number left.

 

I have taken this law up to the 2000th prime number, and by finding this I have never been so sure that there is in fact a hidden structure behind their appearances.

 

IMHO, why was there a need to take that to 2000th prime. If you found that right,you must have aimed to find the reason behind-which no doubt is all about divisibility by 3.

And a prime no. is just a no. which has 1 and itself as its factors. The fact is just that you have again defined what prime no. are. But if you added divisibilty test of 2 also, that would make it complete.

[PeterJ]

The Law States: The sum of all numbers which make up a prime will give you a number which will never be allowed to be a multiple of 3, nor do any digits ever make the sum of 12 to allow 3 to be divided, with the only acception of the the second prime number that is 3. If after you have taken the sum of all your numbers and you end up with a two-digit number, you continue taking the sum of the value until you have only one number left.

 

To me this appears to state that prime numbers <>3 are not divisible by 3.

 

There are all sorts of similar laws. E.g. for any N >3 calculate N^2 - 1. Divide this result by three as many times as possible and if the result is not divisible by 2 then n is not prime. Pretty useless though. Might as well just say that if a number >3 is not at 6n+/-1 it is not prime.

 

I'm also interested in such 'laws'. But I think any law would have to be derived from the behaviour of the products of the primes and not from the 'music of the primes', since the primes are the gaps in the products of the primes and are not directly causally related, unlike the notes in piece of music.

 

When Lao Tsu says that 0,1 and 2 give rise only to each other, (and, strictly speaking, the powers of 2), while 3 gives rise to the 'ten thousand things', it would because once we add the 3 then 2/3 of all the numbers are created. The rest are the primes >3 and their products.

 

Sorry if this sort of naive stuff annoys the mathematicians. It intrigues me look for the simple underlying relationships that you guys forgot at primary school.

[rktpro]

Sorry if this sort of naive stuff annoys the mathematicians. It intrigues me look for the simple underlying relationships that you guys forgot at primary school.

 

I doubt that. A true mathematician is ready to help and take all crap.