It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Primality Algorithm

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Maybe I wasn’t joking - maybe I was on to something after all?

I have established a formula which I confidently believe to be able to deduce whether or not a given number is prime or composite. This is unheard of, mathematicians have been looking for such a thing for centuries. I’m not making it public here and now because, first and foremost, I need to ensure that I take the credit for it. I am trying to get in contact with a reputable mathematics society in order to verify my claim. In any case, I do invite people to discuss known theories and other related matters in respect of prime numbers.

I will, however, show you this...

The number 599 is, of course, a prime. 5+9+9 = 23

By using that method I have discovered, at least so far as 1-1000 is concerned, that no prime number will ever be equal to a multiple of 3 (that is with the exception of 3 itself). For instance, 543 is equal to 12 and therefore cannot be a prime number based on the above law because it is divisible by 3 (yes, 543 goes into 3 but that’s not what I mean, I’m only looking at adding those numbers together). While this test is not entirely useful it should prove that a given number is a composite if 3 is a divisor, and therefore can be used as a first-pass check (especially with large numbers). This isn’t my actual algorithm but it kind of shows what I’m getting at.

I know I talk up some proper guff sometimes but so far as my own tests are concerned, my theory looks very strong. If it truly does work then I’m talking about a Noble Prize here.





posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
My brain recoils in horror at the mention of any numbers.
But kudos to you on your hopefully original and groundbreaking idea



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen

Oh, believe me now... I had one of the worst headaches ever yesterday and that is no joke! I’m unsure if it was all those numbers or the fact that I had 503 cups of coffee while I was working at it.
 
edit on 20th October 2015 by VigiliaProcuratio because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: VigiliaProcuratio

Maybe I wasn’t joking - maybe I was on to something after all?

I have established a formula which I confidently believe to be able to deduce whether or not a given number is prime or composite. This is unheard of, mathematicians have been looking for such a thing for centuries. I’m not making it public here and now because, first and foremost, I need to ensure that I take the credit for it. I am trying to get in contact with a reputable mathematics society in order to verify my claim. In any case, I do invite people to discuss known theories and other related matters in respect of prime numbers.

I will, however, show you this...

The number 599 is, of course, a prime. 5+9+9 = 23

By using that method I have discovered, at least so far as 1-1000 is concerned, that no prime number will ever be equal to a multiple of 3 (that is with the exception of 3 itself). For instance, 543 is equal to 12 and therefore cannot be a prime number based on the above law because it is divisible by 3 (yes, 543 goes into 3 but that’s not what I mean, I’m only looking at adding those numbers together). While this test is not entirely useful it should prove that a given number is a composite if 3 is a divisor, and therefore can be used as a first-pass check (especially with large numbers). This isn’t my actual algorithm but it kind of shows what I’m getting at.

I know I talk up some proper guff sometimes but so far as my own tests are concerned, my theory looks very strong. If it truly does work then I’m talking about a Noble Prize here.



How about this?

Think of a number.
1. If it ends in 2, 4, 6, 8 or 0 it's not a prime number.
2. If you add the digits and keep adding them together until you get a single digit, if that single digit is 3, 6 or 9 it's not a prime number.
3. Add 1 to the number and do step 2. Stop if it's not a prime number: It's a prime number.
4. Take 1 from the number and do step 2. Stop if it's not a prime number: it's a prime number.




edit on 20-10-2015 by TheLamb because: x

edit on 20-10-2015 by TheLamb because: Tuned

edit on 20-10-2015 by TheLamb because: x



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

Will you be accepting your Nobel Prize under your ATS name?



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: VigiliaProcuratio
a reply to: dashen

Oh, believe me now... I had one of the worst headaches ever yesterday and that is no joke! I’m unsure if it was all those numbers or the fact that I had 503 cups of coffee while I was working at it.
 


503 being a prime number and all..



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

If you have indeed found such a revolutionary algorithm, you should talk with a good Intellectual Property attorney and figure out what you need to do to best move this finding forward into R & D and applications



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

There's no Nobel Prize for mathematics. I'm going to go ahead and guess that you're likely not onto anything simply because of the sheer number of brilliant minds who've had an interest in primes and not just among career mathematicians; primes are central to modern public key encryption schemes.

EDIT:

If I'm understanding correctly, you're summing the digits and then testing for divisibility by 3. This is a well known shortcut for determining if a number is divisible by 3. Obviously any number > 3 that is divisible by 3 isn't a prime.

See Wikipedia - Divisibility Rule.
edit on 2015-10-20 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

Oh right, maybe next time I’ll have an even amount of cups to be on the safe-side!

a reply to: theantediluvian

Well, maybe there are already working formulas in existence and they haven’t been made public because they are used for not only encryption, but also things like creating the lightest yet strongest armour possible. Dunno really.

a reply to: TheLamb

Trivial numbers are irrelevant, what matters are the ones you couldn’t print on this page without causing both the server and your computer to crash. Did you know that the highest known prime number has almost 17.5 million digits? If my theory is true then I will suppose it can be used to smash that record. Anyway, the entire point of having a formula is that it can be tested against any number and will be able to categorically confirm whether it is a prime or composite - it doesn’t matter if we already know what the answer is, what counts is that the formula will be correct every time. If it does hold then it can quite possibly have huge applications in science and industry, particularly where reliable predictions have to be made.


edit on 20th October 2015 by VigiliaProcuratio because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio
The sum of any number's digits being divisible by 3 means the number itself is divisible by 3 meaning no prime number other than 3 can pass this test. That should carry on to infinity I believe?

I thought this was mostly just fact or is there somewhere at high numbers this breaks down? Feel like I missed somethiiiiiiiiiiing



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Pinke

That’s just a another example, it is NOT the algorithm of concern. I picked up on it and found it was rather interesting because if you have a number with lots and lots and lots of digits then you can try adding them all together to see if they add up to anything which can be divided by 3 (in other words, if it adds up to 24 then it’s not a prime because it goes into 3).




posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: VigiliaProcuratio
a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

Oh right, maybe next time I’ll have an even amount of cups to be on the safe-side!

a reply to: theantediluvian

Well, maybe there are already working formulas in existence and they haven’t been made public because they are used for not only encryption, but also things like creating the lightest yet strongest armour possible. Dunno really.

a reply to: TheLamb

Trivial numbers are irrelevant, what matters are the ones you couldn’t print on this page without causing both the server and your computer to crash. Did you know that the highest known prime number has almost 17.5 million digits? If my theory is true then I will suppose it can be used to smash that record. Anyway, the entire point of having a formula is that it can be tested against any number and will be able to categorically confirm whether it is a prime or composite - it doesn’t matter if we already know what the answer is, what counts is that the formula will be correct every time. If it does hold then it can quite possibly have huge applications in science and industry, particularly where reliable predictions have to be made.



He was only going to 1000 ...

Here's my modified solution:
Think of a number.
1. If it ends in 2, 4, 6, 8 or 0 it's not a prime number.
2. If you add the digits and keep adding them together until you get a single digit, if that single digit is 3, 6 or 9 it's not a prime number.
3. Add 1 to the number and do step 2. Stop if it's not a prime number: It's a prime number.
4. Take 1 from the number and do step 2. Stop if it's not a prime number: it's a prime number.

edit on 20-10-2015 by TheLamb because: x



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Basically guys... I’ll challenge anybody to show me a working formula which can deduce with 100% accuracy that a given number is prime. My formula can do it.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
If I'm understanding correctly, you're summing the digits and then testing for divisibility by 3. This is a well known shortcut for determining if a number is divisible by 3. Obviously any number > 3 that is divisible by 3 isn't a prime.

See Wikipedia - Divisibility Rule.

That’s handy, much appreciated. Anyway, that little example I gave is not really what I’m concerned with. As I said I have a straight-up formula which can be put to any number without having to run any other calculations.

a reply to: TheLamb

Can you use some numbers to show me what you’re getting at because I really don’t understand that?
edit on 20th October 2015 by VigiliaProcuratio because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: VigiliaProcuratio
Basically guys... I’ll challenge anybody to show me a working formula which can deduce with 100% accuracy that a given number is prime. My formula can do it.


IF(X MOD 2 = 1 AND ((X + 1)MOD 3 = 0 OR (X - 1)MOD 3 = 0)) = PRIME NUMBER



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Wait, hold on... I don’t understand this modular stuff. I know that’s a well-known formula as I saw it on my travels while working out my own theory... but I can’t grasp how it works. Can you explain it?



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: VigiliaProcuratio
Wait, hold on... I don’t understand this modular stuff. I know that’s a well-known formula as I saw it on my travels while working out my own theory... but I can’t grasp how it works. Can you explain it?


Imagine a clock. If you're working MOD 3 it has the numbers 0 1 2, MOD 4 has 0 1 2 3. You take a number and count round the clock until you've counted the whole number. So with MOD 3 the number 4 would end up back at 1. Even numbers MOD 2 = 0. Odd numbers MOD 2 = 1. It's basically dividing by a number and giving the remainder as the result.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Okay, I get it now. Well, I don’t get it but the Windows calculator seems to be doing the job quite well. How reliable is that? If it works flawlessly then why do so many sources, such as Wikipedia, claim that there is “no known formula”?
 
edit on 20th October 2015 by VigiliaProcuratio because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

In number theory, a formula for primes is a formula generating the prime numbers, exactly and without exception. No such formula which is efficiently computable is known. A number of constraints are known, showing what such a "formula" can and cannot be.

Source

Is things like this too. I could be completely off base but it seems it's the 'efficiently computable' part that is often an issue. If makes a tiny formula that can do giant numbers that probably helps.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join