- #1
thetexan
- 269
- 13
I had an idea a while back and did an experiment concerning primes.
It began with the idea that the distribution of prime numbers must be somehow determinable.
So I used photoshop and created a white line several pixels wide and several million pixels long, each pixel along the length representing a positive number. Then, using the pattern capability of photoshop, I changed every other pixel along the length to black representing a seive that eliminates all multiples of two. Then I repeated it for three and so on. After doing it with two I had a pattern of every other pixel being black. After each iteration a new repeating pattern would appear. The pattern was repeating and predictable. Of course with each pass of the sieve a much more complex pattern emerged.
Now, there are a few observations with this.
1. The pattern represents the pattern of numbers removed from the number line.
2. The inverse pattern i.e. the pattern of the numbers left is much more complex but a pattern none-the-less.
3. As the number of passes of the sieve increases the pattern of removed numbers increases greatly in complexity and that pattern's inverse is even more so.
4. No matter how complex the pattern, we can deduce that there is a pattern and therefore also deduce that there is an inverse pattern.
5. And if there is a pattern, it must be definable by some algorithm, no matter how complex.
Doesnt this idea and experiment indicate that it should be possible to exactly determine and predict the pattern and frequency of primes?
We know there is a pattern...patterns are definable...therefore prime number distribution must be definable.
What do you think?
It began with the idea that the distribution of prime numbers must be somehow determinable.
So I used photoshop and created a white line several pixels wide and several million pixels long, each pixel along the length representing a positive number. Then, using the pattern capability of photoshop, I changed every other pixel along the length to black representing a seive that eliminates all multiples of two. Then I repeated it for three and so on. After doing it with two I had a pattern of every other pixel being black. After each iteration a new repeating pattern would appear. The pattern was repeating and predictable. Of course with each pass of the sieve a much more complex pattern emerged.
Now, there are a few observations with this.
1. The pattern represents the pattern of numbers removed from the number line.
2. The inverse pattern i.e. the pattern of the numbers left is much more complex but a pattern none-the-less.
3. As the number of passes of the sieve increases the pattern of removed numbers increases greatly in complexity and that pattern's inverse is even more so.
4. No matter how complex the pattern, we can deduce that there is a pattern and therefore also deduce that there is an inverse pattern.
5. And if there is a pattern, it must be definable by some algorithm, no matter how complex.
Doesnt this idea and experiment indicate that it should be possible to exactly determine and predict the pattern and frequency of primes?
We know there is a pattern...patterns are definable...therefore prime number distribution must be definable.
What do you think?