LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  January 2006

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE January 2006

Subject:

Prime Numbers (A change of pace)

From:

Mitchel Cohen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 9 Jan 2006 17:22:27 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (82 lines)

Are there folks on this list interested in prime numbers?

While there are interesting applications of prime numbers to, say, music 
theory and other investigations, a formula for generating all primes 
successfully (and ONLY primes) still eludes mathematicians, and remains one 
of the great remaining mysteries of simple arithmetic, now that Fermat's 
last theorem was solved a few years ago, after centuries. (I  still have 
not seen a particularly elegant proof, or the simple one that Fermat 
suggested existed but was "too big for the margins" of the page on which he 
was writing.) In fact, I'll wager that at some point the undiscovered 
formula for primes and Fermat's last theorem are integrally related, but 
that's another discussion for another time.

I want to propose a different approach -- i.e., I want to reframe the way 
we look at primes. Instead of defining a prime number as a positive integer 
having no whole factors besides itself and the  number 1, I'd propose a 
different definition: Look at it via ADDITION: A prime is the SUM of two 
and only two consecutive positive integers. All other positive integers can 
be expressed as the sum of at least three or more consecutive positive 
integers.

Unlike multiplication (which is repetitive addition), addition enables us 
to perform a function -- in this case adding consecutive numbers -- that 
are of the same type. In multiplication we multiply a cardinal number by an 
ordinal number -- by the number of times we want to ADD, say, a set of 
three items. It is this self-referencing dimension (quality) of numbers 
that multiplication -- unlike simple addition -- depends on.

So in multiplying 3 x 4, for instance, we are starting with a set of 3 
items and adding 3 more items, and then 3 more, and then 3 more. The "4", 
therefore, is serving a different kind of function in the equation than the 
"3". They are not performing the same tasks.

In simple addition, however, we are adding directly items in the same 
category without the self-referential quality. We add directly the number 
of items to another number of items. I believe that reliance on 
multiplication without recognizing the different categories involved has 
prevented us from achieving a clear understanding of primes. The use of 
these two categories of numbers inherent in multiplying "tricks" us. By 
using simple addition we gain new insights into the  nature of primes that 
are concealed by addition.

I hypothesize (but cannot yet prove) that a prime number has an additional 
quality to it that tells other numbers how to behave in certain 
circumstances or sequences, just as under particular conditions certain DNA 
sequences tell the rest of the chain (of which it is a part) how to behave, 
to turn on or off, etc. This is one avenue in which the approach I suggest 
may open new vistas.

In addition and unlike multiplication, the reason why a number that sums to 
three or more consecutive integers cannot be prime is simple: Any (n-1) + n 
+ (n+1) will sum to 3n and thus 3 and n will be factors of the sum. This 
holds for EVERY odd number of consecutive integers-- obvious in addiition, 
but opaque when looked at via multiplication.

For every even number of consecutive integers, pair off the integers [(n-3) 
+ (n-2)] + [(n-1) + (n)]  + [(n+1) + (n+2)] . For the case of odd number of 
pairs, the sum will be a multiple of the center pair multiplied by the 
number of pairs, and thus not prime. Or, in summing the example above 
containing 3 pairs, the sum comes to 6n - 3, which can be divided by 3, and 
thus cannot be prime. The same can also be done for every number of 
consecutive integers -- pair them off and they become divisible by the 
number of pairs. Again, this simple aspect of addition is concealed by 
multiplication, and it shows WHY those numbers that are the sum of only two 
consecutive numbers are primes.

(We can then examine how many sets of different consecutive sequences a 
particular sum may contain.)

Primes have fascinated me since I was a kid, and like many folks I've 
played around with them, tried them out in different bases, etc. (My 
brother the musician says that base 5 generates interesting results.)

And then, of course, is the question -- why haven't mathematicians gone 
back to examining what has kept them from generating a formula for primes, 
and used that "unasking" of the question to developing a simple reframing 
-- a new approach -- such as the one above.

What do you think?

Mitchel Cohen

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager