Negative Primes?

[sunshaker]

Once I realized primes mirrored each side of (45) adding to 90 43/47 down to 89/1.except for the fibonacci primes 2,3,5,13,89

I was wondering if you could then use "negative primes" to predict future primes, by within this method adding 90 to negative primes(shown below)

 

if you notice below prime -7 you add 90 you get prime 97

 

-7+90=97

-11+90=101

-13+90=103

-17+90=107 etc.

there are a couple of gaps, prime 139 should mirror with -49 which we know is not a prime but is a prime times itself 7x7=49.

 

I was also wondering whether there are sequences higher up in the primes where this mirroring of primes is beyond 90?

 

by knowing the just primes up to -47 using neg +90 you can get the primes up to prime 137, once you have these primes you just continue.

Edited July 26, 2015 by sunshaker

[Acme]

...if you notice below prime -7 you add 90 you get prime 97

 

-7+90=97

...

-7+90=83, not 97. The other number sentences are wrong too.

[sunshaker]

-7+90=83, not 97. The other number sentences are wrong too.

if you notice in the above chart, and follow from -7 you will see the yellow line does stop at "83"showing -7+90=83 but also continues to shows -7+90=97

But take the primes going into the negative and just add 90 so -7=90=97, -11+90=101 etc.

Each negative prime plus 90 gives the next prime in the positive row.

 

yes I know -11+90=79 which I have again showed if you follow -11 around the blue line stopping under 79 but continue following line and it mirrors 101 -11+90=101.

 

easier view maybe, just add 90 to each neg in order and it gives next positive prime.(yes -7+90=97)

Edited July 27, 2015 by sunshaker

[Strange]

 

yes -7+90=97

 

No, 90 - 7 = 83

And 90 - 11 = 79

[sunshaker]

 

No, 90 - 7 = 83

And 90 - 11 = 79

Are people acting dumb just to derail thread before I start?

I have explained this above, yes I have showed 90+-11=79 but also show that using the primes going into the negs and adding 90 you get the next prime 90+-11=101, as shown below.

 

 

you can see shown the two multiples of -7, -7+90=83 also -7+90=97. 83 & 97 both primes.

[Strange]

you can see shown the two multiples of -7, -7+90=83 also -7+90=97. 83 & 97 both primes.

So it seems you mean 90+7 and 90-7? Or do you mean -(7+90)? But these are not "multiples" of -7, anyway. I think you need to standardise (or clarify) your terminology.

 

 

Are people acting dumb just to derail thread before I start?

 

I don't see how it can be other people's fault when you use standard mathematical symbols to have some special, private meaning that you haven't explained

Edited July 27, 2015 by Strange

[studiot]

 

Are people acting dumb just to derail thread before I start?

 

 

No, they are confused by the non standard notation.

 

However since that is not the main point of your presentation perhaps we can discuss that instead?

 

 

 

I am intrigued by your rectangular boxes, perhaps you would expand on the idea?

 

 

Why did you chose 90 to add primes to?

 

I tested the idea of adding primes to other numbers besides 90 , for instance 80 and 100 and can see that 90 appears to generate more primes so for instance

 

90 + 1097 = 1187 - a prime

 

But neither 80 + 1097 = 1177 nor 100 + 1097 = 1197 are prime

 

Since all primes greater than 2 are odd and odd + odd makes non prime even, you need an even number to add your primes to.

Edited July 27, 2015 by studiot

[Strange]

Perhaps 90 is a good fit for the typical spacing between primes in this sort of range? Primes become sparser as they become larger so, presumably, for primes above 10,000 (for example) you would need a larger number to find primes in this way.

[John Cuthber]

It seems that I can summarise this thread by saying that sometimes if you add an even number to a prime you get another prime.

[sunshaker]

So it seems you mean 90+7 and 90-7? Or do you mean -(7+90)? But these are not "multiples" of -7, anyway. I think you need to standardise (or clarify) your terminology.

 

 

I don't see how it can be other people's fault when you use standard mathematical symbols to have some special, private meaning that you haven't explained

 

 

 

No, they are confused by the non standard notation.

 

However since that is not the main point of your presentation perhaps we can discuss that instead?

 

 

 

I am intrigued by your rectangular boxes, perhaps you would expand on the idea?

 

 

Why did you chose 90 to add primes to?

 

I tested the idea of adding primes to other numbers besides 90 , for instance 80 and 100 and can see that 90 appears to generate more primes so for instance

 

90 + 1097 = 1187 - a prime

 

But neither 80 + 1097 = 1177 nor 100 + 1097 = 1197 are prime

 

Since all primes greater than 2 are odd and odd + odd makes non prime even, you need an even number to add your primes to.

I choose 90 first because primes where mirrored each side of (45)not a prime 43/47 37/53 31/59 29/71 down to 89/1 each adding to 90, once i got to one I wondered what happens if i carried on, using 90 added to negative primes I could predict higher primes, -7+90=97 97 is the next prime, this meant I only needed a few lower primes to predict higher primes -11 (-11+ 90=101) 101 the next prime..

 

I realized I could not predict all the primes example 139, this would be -49+90=139 but 49 is not a prime, I am begining to understand why i cannot predict every prime,

 

I then decided to look for other mirror primes, One set I found starts at 103/107=210 instead of 90, each prime each side of 103/107 add to 210 has shown below, with this way i was then able to predict missing prime 139 by this mirror of 210 71/139=210.

 

follow any neg prime around rectangle box shows the next prime in sequence, above 90, shown below 210. example -13+210= prime 223, -17+210=227 etc

 

Edited July 27, 2015 by sunshaker

[imatfaal]

It works for most smaller primes because

 

Prime = 2m+h = 3n+j = 5o+k...

Where h,j,k etc cannot be zero (otherwise it would divide evenly and be a composite)

 

Prime +30 = 2(n+15)+h=3(m+10)+j= 5(o+6)+k

So Adding 30 (ie 2 x 3 x 5) to a prime will often give you another prime - it doesn't work that well as you have 7, 11 etc but it does work a hell of a lot better than adding 32 (ie 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2)

 

You get another set of "pairs" 210 apart - but this set is less significant as 11 (next prime) is much smaller than the additive

[Strange]

It seems that I can summarise this thread by saying that sometimes if you add an even number to a prime you get another prime.

 

I think that is a bit unfair. It looks like sunshaker has stumbled on a particular case of arithmetic progression of primes: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeArithmeticProgression.html

The other thing that sunshaker's (rather incomprehensible) diagrams remind me of, is Ulam's spiral: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeSpiral.html

[sunshaker]

I think if I can find one more set of higher mirrors I can predict any prime by using a lower prime.

 

using 210 I can predict most primes two ways,

examples

-13 + 210= prime 223

-13 +197=210 gives prime 197

 

-17 +210=prime 227

-17+ 193= 210 gives prime 193

 

-19+210=prime 229

-19+ 191=210 gives prime 191

the next negative gives the next positive.

[Strange]

 

using 210 I can predict most primes two ways,

 

210 gives the longest run of arithmetic primes currently known. So it is not surprising that you find a lot of primes +/- 210.

 

 

-13 +197=210

 

I think you mean 13 + 197 (197-13 = 184). Otherwise you need to explain what that minus sign is doing there.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Strange

[sunshaker]

 

210 gives the longest run of arithmetic primes currently known. So it is not surprising that you find a lot of primes +/- 210.

 

 

I think you mean 13 + 197 (197-13 = 184). Otherwise you need to explain what that minus sign is doing there.

 

when I say - prime I mean the primes going of to left, but you add these "negative" has a whole number to 90/210 to give next prime.

Or take away this negative from 90/210 to give next prime.

 

shown below just -7, -7/83=90 giving me first prime 83 then also -7+90=prime 97, I call these negative primes but perhaps could call them mirror primes.

 

 

[Delta1212]

OOOhhh. It took me a while, but I finally got it.

You're actually writing things in a more confusing way than you should.

What you were doing is prime + prime = 90

So:

43 + 47 = 90

19 + 71 = 90

1 + 89 = 90


And then you kept going so

-7 + x = 90
x = 97

So rather than 90 + -7 = 97, what you're actually trying to say is that 97 and -7 are a pair of primes that are reflected over 45 and add to 90, following the pattern that you had discovered.

I see what you were going for, but the notation you were using really was confusing.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Delta1212

[Strange]

Ah, it is a version of Goldbach's conjecture, then?

 

90 can be written as the sum of two primes in 14 different ways: https://oeis.org/A045917

[sunshaker]

OOOhhh. It took me a while, but I finally got it.

 

You're actually writing things in a more confusing way than you should.

 

What you were doing is prime + prime = 90

 

So:

 

43 + 47 = 90

 

29 + 71 = 90

 

1 + 89 = 90

 

 

And then you kept going so

 

-7 + x = 90

x = 97

 

So rather than 90 + -7 = 97, what you're actually trying to say is that 97 and -7 are a pair of primes that are reflected over 45 and add to 90, following the pattern that you had discovered.

 

I see what you were going for, but the notation you were using really was confusing.

Correct except where you show 29 + 71 = 90, should be 19+71=90

 

 

Ah, it is a version of Goldbach's conjecture, then?

 

90 can be written as the sum of two primes in 14 different ways: https://oeis.org/A045917

maybe along those lines but 90 can be the sum of two primes in "many" more than 14 ways, by going into the "neg/mirror primes).

 

 

I realize I need both 90/210 and possibly another which I am looking into to predict all primes, but it was something "I" Found interesting and worth further exploration.

Edited July 27, 2015 by sunshaker

[imatfaal]

 

I realize I need both 90/210 and possibly another which I am looking into to predict all primes, but it was something "I" Found interesting and worth further exploration.

 

I gave the explanation. Half the numbers on the number line are divisible by two, a third by three, and a fifth by five; by adding 30 (or a multiple of thirty) to a prime you automatically - through simple mathematics - chose one of the numbers that is divisible by none of the three commonest divisors; this number is much more likely to be a prime than if guessed randomly. 210 is the same for the commonest four divisors

[Delta1212]

Correct except where you show 29 + 71 = 90, should be 19+71=90

 

Woops, thanks for catching that.

[sunshaker]

a little snippet showing primes in order above/below, +90 to neg/mirror prime, show in orange primes that do not follow +90,

29, 31 etc but these you still get a prime 29/61=90, 31/59=90 but i also can find these primes using 210,

 

 

I may not be the best explaining or showing, but i am trying to overlap certaain of these charts to show all primes without any gaps. just hard for me to show as diagrams look confusing to some, And I do not have the math to put to equations, but i have been able to predict every prime in a row using lower neg/mirror primes.

W

 

 

[Acme]

...The other thing that sunshaker's (rather incomprehensible) diagrams remind me of, is Ulam's spiral: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeSpiral.html

I brought up Ulam's spiral in post #5 of Sunshaker's original thread of his diagrams. Frankly, I don't see why this thread is separate as it is more of the same.

 

I think if I can find one more set of higher mirrors I can predict any prime by using a lower prime.

...

As you said in your other thread on prime numbers:

...I have been looking for something I could think on for a while, Perhaps I will look for that "complete knowledge of primes".

"fools rush in" .

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[sunshaker]

I brought up Ulam's spiral in post #5 of Sunshaker's original thread of his diagrams. Frankly, I don't see why this thread is separate as it is more of the same.

 

As you said in your other thread on prime numbers:

 

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

it is nothing like ulams spiral, the other thread is completely different to this one, with a small amount of primes myself with little math can predict each higher prime in the prime sequence,

Plus I DID NOT WANT TO DERAIL OTHER THREAD, LOOKING AT PRIMES USING THIS NEG/MIRROR METHOD,

 

Those who give up are always doomed to failure.

 

I found something "I found interesting" and thought others may be able to help to take it further, I can see you do not really understand what I am showing, but hope others may see something worth taking a bit further.

 

in a earlier post I said about overlapping tables to find missing primes, below to small tables running opposite ways that would fill missing primes (not shown overlapped) but you may get impression of what was meant.

Edited July 27, 2015 by sunshaker

[Acme]

it is nothing like ulams spiral, ...

You are using a graphic to represent primes and so did Ulam. In both cases the 'predictive' aspect quickly fails.

 

...the other thread is completely different to this one, with a small amount of primes myself with little math can predict each higher prime in the prime sequence, ...

This thread is a subset of the other. Your 'little math' is a big problem and again you cannot predict 'each' higher prime.

 

Plus I DID NOT WANT TO DERAIL OTHER THREAD, LOOKING AT PRIMES USING THIS NEG/MIRROR METHOD, ...

A subset is not a derail. We look at many different aspects of primes in the other thread.

 

Those who give up are always doomed to failure.

Meh

 

I found something "I found interesting" and thought others may be able to help to take it further, I can see you do not really understand what I am showing, but hope others may see something worth taking a bit further.

I see what you are doing and that's why I am being critical.

[sunshaker]

You are using a graphic to represent primes and so did Ulam. In both cases the 'predictive' aspect quickly fails.

 

 

I see what you are doing and that's why I am being critical.

it is why I thought others here with the math, that understand what I am trying to show using neg primes, may show when and where this fails, and also find an higher set above 90, 210 that can carry these predictions further,

I do rely on people being critical to my method, so I can see where i need to go next, I know it is not perfect, but it is something I believe I can build on.

I have not yet reached a place it fails on(primes in hundreds), but I know it will but I then hope to build from where it fails.