Negative Primes?

[Acme]

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.

I and others showed you why your math is wrong when you use a negative sign and you rejected our input. Simply mapping the primes is not predictive and having to constantly change your set values may satisfy your belief, but it is mathematically worthless.

[sunshaker]

I and others showed you why your math is wrong when you use a negative sign and you rejected our input. Simply mapping the primes is not predictive and having to constantly change your set values may satisfy your belief, but it is mathematically worthless.

mathematically worthless when I can predict every prime in the hundreds from a starting point of just a few low primes?

 

FORGET THE NEGATIVE SIGN(yawn), it is just a case of using "two sets" of primes to predict higher primes(simple)no having to constantly change set values to fit my beliefs.

 

show me a better/simple way of starting with seven primes and predicting every prime into the hundreds?(without complicated equations/math?

If you have nothing more to offer as you do not seem to understand the method used, please reframe from posting to derail thread.

Thanks sunshaker.

[Acme]

mathematically worthless when I can predict every prime in the hundreds from a starting point of just a few low primes?

Yes. Were it not the case then the mathematicians here would be falling all over themselves to sing your praises. It is the case and they're not.

 

FORGET THE NEGATIVE SIGN(yawn), ...

But it's the premise of your thread!? You asked for mathematical criticism and when you get it you yawn. D'oh.

 

it is just a case of using "two sets" of primes to predict higher primes(simple)no having to constantly change set values to fit my beliefs.

 

show me a better/simple way of starting with seven primes and predicting every prime into the hundreds?(without complicated equations/math?

You already admitted you can't do that when you said:

...

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 beginning to understand why i cannot predict every prime,...

If you have nothing more to offer as you do not seem to understand the method used, please reframe from posting to derail thread.

Thanks sunshaker.

I am not derailing the thread and I will post as I please within the rules. Just because this is the Speculations section, you are not exempt from rigor.

[sunshaker]

Yes. Were it not the case then the mathematicians here would be falling all over themselves to sing your praises. It is the case and they're not.

 

There are many ways to predict primes, As I am no mathematician I found this way interesting and worth looking into,

Yes I CALLED IT NEGATIVE PRIMES TO PREDICT PRIMES, Because I needed "two sets" of primes running in opposite directions.

This allowed me to predict every prime in order into the hundreds just with the first seven primes(overlapping two methods into one system), for me with little math i found interesting and wondered how far I could take it before breaking down, And mistakenly thought I might get some help/pointers, instead of having to argue over the definition of "negative" in this method.

[sunshaker]

As i have two sets of primes running in opposite directions I called one negative, perhaps I should call one set(a) and the opposite set(b).

below I tried to show a,b=90 &\a,b=210 overlapping, here I show all primes to prime 199,

mainly using 210,

 

last shown outside line (a)11/(b)199 =(210)

 

To find primes after 199, I go through the (b)primes to210,

example

(b) next primes

13+210=223

17=210=227

19+210=229

23+210=233

29+210=239

etc

follow around each rectangle of prime(a) to prime(b) (a)11/(b)199 =(210)(outside yellow)

 

Edited July 28, 2015 by sunshaker

[imatfaal]

Sunshaker - you are not validly predicting primes because you will miss some that are primes and you will falsely predict some that are not primes. For the third time you are merely finding numbers that are more likely than otherwise to be primes

 

13+210=223

17=210=227

19+210=229

23+210=233

29+210=239

etc

 

31+210 = 241 ok

37+210 = 247 = 13*19 oops

So not much of an et cetera in false positives

 

And in the false negatives side

331 = 210 +121 BUT 121 = 11*11

It is obvious that this is where this problem starts as below this figure there are no compounds of 11 that do not also have a lower prime as a factor.

 

Note your method would give an even density of primes - whereas the prime number theorem proves that they vary with the form

 

Numbers of primes less than x approximates x divided by log x

[sunshaker]

Sunshaker - you are not validly predicting primes because you will miss some that are primes and you will falsely predict some that are not primes. For the third time you are merely finding numbers that are more likely than otherwise to be primes

 

 

 

I do realize that it predicts a few false primes also miss a couple of primes, this is just when using one method either x+x=90/x+90, or x+x=210/x+210,

I am trying to merge two or more methods to over come this problem, but it is hard to show this merging as it looks confusing in these pictures,

below I have multiple tables, I would have posted it in xl where you can see it clearer but am having a problem exporting it.

pink shows number 1 in each method.inner shows x+x=x outer show x+30, 60 etc.

x+x=30 / x+30

x+x=60 / x+60

x+x=90 / x+90

x+x=120 / x+120

x+x=150 / x+150

x+x=180 / x+180

x+x=210 / x+210

x+x=240 / x+240

I have tried to place them under each another to see where they fail in relation to each another, I was going to show to 360(circle) but thought this is enough for now,

 

Edited tables

 

 

Below table (30) x+x=30(inner), x+30 (outer).

Within tables primes not coloured show failure to predict next prime but can be predicted,

these are 103 but you can subtract 30 to give prime 73, also 89 but you can subtract 30 to give prime 59(means you can add 30 to 59 to give prime 89,

also 61 which you can subtract 30 to give prime 31, also 47 subtract 30 to give prime 17,

 

On other side you have two which are 79, and 107 these two you add 30 instead of subtracting giving primes 109, 137.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 29, 2015 by sunshaker