EPT[Math] Prime number progression?! - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
graNite
Germany4434 Posts
| ||
cgrinker
United States3824 Posts
 You would want to use an inductive proof to show that the next element in the sequence satisfied your constraint. which it doesn't. | ||
|
rkffhk
474 Posts
| ||
|
Marradron
Netherlands1586 Posts
On April 22 2011 08:35 Rtran10 wrote: 2^8 = 256. (2^8)-1 = 255. 255 is not prime. Am i doing this right? No, the start point is given. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
|
Mailing
United States3087 Posts
Grade 1-8? Easiest thing in the world. Algebra 1, 2, and pre calc? Ok, this is a little challening, but very easy once you finally get it. Calculus and AP calculus? urrgghh College advanced math? Screw that, I am majoring in biology. | ||
|
SonuvBob
Aiur21549 Posts
edit: reopened. apparently this is an unsolved problem, so even if it is his homework, no one can do it for him. :p | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
On April 22 2011 08:45 SonuvBob wrote: TL is not here to do your homework for you. edit: reopened. apparently this is an unsolved problem, so even if it is his homework, no one can do it for him. :p The OP needs to rephrase his question so its not so easy to misread. I had to read it like 5 times. | ||
micronesia
United States24564 Posts
| ||
|
Oracle
Canada411 Posts
On April 22 2011 12:50 micronesia wrote: Haha my initial insticts were right! I was gonna leave this open then when I saw SoB close it I was like "hmmmm it DOES sound like a hw thread" but... GOOD LUCK. Whoever solves it gets my <3 I doubt anyone here has a Ph D in number theory, and even then, you'd break the world if this problem was solved. On April 22 2011 12:43 Antisocialmunky wrote: The OP needs to rephrase his question so its not so easy to misread. I had to read it like 5 times. Lol there's absolutely no ambiguity in this question, you're clearly trying to backpeddle this post. | ||
|
zJayy962
1363 Posts
| ||
|
D4L[invd]
Canada110 Posts
you learn the proof in first year calc. | ||
|
blah_blah
346 Posts
| ||
|
Samhax
1054 Posts
I think the op was trolling though. Edit : If the question is, does this sequence give only prime number then it's pretty much sure that the answer is no, and the easiest way to prove is to find the first non prime number. If the question is, does this sequence can give an infinite amount of prime number but not necessary all of them, then read what i wrote previously. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On April 22 2011 07:48 graNite wrote: That one is easy. All that problem is saying is that a number X, if multiplied by itself a prime number of times minus 1 (itself) will always be a prime number.![[image loading]](http://s3.imgimg.de/uploads/latex2png1deb35a6php1deb35a6png.png) with ![[image loading]](http://s3.imgimg.de/uploads/latex2pngad1d8bebphpad1d8bebpng.png) it produces: 2 3 7 127 ... how can i prove that every number coming of this progression is prime? if that's not possible, how can i disprove it? It's obviously this will only be true if X = 48÷2(9+3) Since 48÷2(9+3)=2 then all the output of that sequence are prime numbers. Next? | ||
|
Samhax
1054 Posts
On May 15 2011 08:11 VIB wrote: That one is easy. All that problem is saying is that a number X, if multiplied by itself a prime number of times minus 1 (itself) will always be a prime number. It's obviously this will only be true if X = 48÷2(9+3) Since 48÷2(9+3)=2 then all the output of that sequence are prime numbers. Next? Man what are you smoking? If you can find a sequence with only prime numbers it's fucking huge! I don't think you realise what you are saying... | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
On April 22 2011 08:40 cgrinker wrote: Not that such a sequence exists yet but You would want to use an inductive proof to show that the next element in the sequence satisfied your constraint. which it doesn't. worth just requoting this since the thread seems to be full of people with no mathmatical teaching and are just trying to count every prime out | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On May 15 2011 08:15 Samhax wrote: Man what are you smoking? If you can find a sequence with only prime numbers it's fucking huge! I don't think you realise what you are saying... I suppose he is trolling using the formula from the infamous "math" thread about notations. | ||
|
Samhax
1054 Posts
On May 15 2011 08:20 mcc wrote: I suppose he is trolling using the formula from the infamous "math" thread about notations. lol ok, i got trolled :p | ||
|
Cyber_Cheese
Australia3615 Posts
past a5, computers can't store the number using standard datatypes if you have any programming experience, perhaps you could create a program to work it out and use some sort of overflow, but that would be a beast to test, not to mention having to factor it realistically thats as far as your going to get in the progression, and should base your theories off that proving it's another matter | ||
| ||
