Another Look at Prime Numbers

Futher to my comment above,I am convinced that the mystery of the sequence of the Primes [prime numbers] can be explained [within elementary algebra] fairly easily.
But first we must take a more careful look at the rules of distribution:
To save writing, let’s put A = addition, S = subtraction, M = multiplication.

Now let us assert that the following four rules are true - simultaneously.
[a] A is distributive over M
[b] S is distibutive over M
[c] M is distributive over A
[d] M is distributive over S

This implies [necessitates] that there exist intrinsic relationships among the algebraic variables - equations [because all the four rules above are valid]. Where rules [a] and [b] fail, this must be regarded as exceptional [there are an infinite number of exceptions].
The above truth of the four rules lead to an algorithm that I have called: The Evolutionary Algorithm. T.E.A is just the kind of algorithm needed to settle this mystery [let’s not call it a mystery, let’s downgrade it to a puzzle - most people like puzzles] of the prime sequence.
However one or two details need to be fixed before this algorithm can be started and implemented. [i] being able to solve the pairs of equations that constitute each step of T.E.A. [ii] there are two [fixed] algebraic variables in the first step of T.E.A. whose values need to be assigned. Once this is gotten past then we should have an algorithm that produces the successor prime, one at a time at each step. Then the manner in which sequence of the primes works may be come clearer, if not absolutely clear. You might have guessed why there are two equations in each step of The Evolutionary Algorithm - its because there are two rules of distribution - rules [a] and [b].
I now want to indicate how T.E.A. is constructed.
The two simplest equations arising from the rules of distribution are:
b.c + a = [b + a].[c + a] rule [a]
b.c - a = [b - a].[c - a] rule [b]
The rules of commutation and association may be considered to be universally valid.
Note the peculiar order in which the terms on the left side of the equations have been written.
The above two equations constitute the first step of T.E.A and are easily solved for the variable: a in terms of b and c. The right sides of the two equations are calling to be multiplied out. There are many actual numbers that can be set for b and c, therby giving a value for: a. However suitable values for b and c in T.E.A. have not yet been found. It could be expeditious to concentrate on uneven integers for b and c [perhaps a few early members from the class: [3, 5, 7, 11, 13, …].
It would be better now to introduce notation.
The first two equations become:
d[1].d[2] + a[1] = [d[1] + a[1]].[d[2] + a[1]]
[ - 1]{2}.[d[1].d[2] - a[1]] = [d[1] - a[1]].
[d[2] - a[1]]
The factor involving minus one: [ - 1] is put there for a good purpose - not to make the maths more difficult.
In the next step of T.E.A. we set d[3] = a[1], which we just have computed in the first step. Then we relabel a[1] as a[2].
The first equation in the second step is:
d[1].d[2].d[3] + a[2] = [d[1] + a[2]].[d[2] + a[2]].[d[3] + a[2]]
The second equation in the second step is:
[ - 1]
{3}.[d[1].d[2].d[3] - a[2]] = [d[1] - a[2]].[d[2] - a[2]].[d[3] - a[2]]
We use the second step to compute a[2] in terms of d[1], d[2] and d[3]. Then we set d[4] = a[2] and relabel a[2] as a[3]. I’ll just write out an abbreviated version of the second equation for the third step. The first equation [involving addition] for the third step is easy to write
down.
The second equation in the third step is:
[ -1]{4}.[d[1].d[2].d[3].d[4] - a[3]] = [d[1] - a[3]].[d[2] - a[3]].[d[3] - a[3]].[d[4] - a[3]]
[not really abbreviated at all]
In the step involving a[j] in the second [subtraction] equation, there is a term [ - 1]
{j + 1} to multiply the left side and we are tying to solve for a[j] in terms of the fixed [ assigned] values of d[1] and d[2] in step one and the computed values: d[3], d[4], … d[j + 1] from the a[j - 1] values in the previous steps.
The T.E.A. algorithm outlined above uses all of the previous information to find the next piece of information so that the algorithm can be continued one step at a time indefinitely. This is exactly what we need in order to find the sequence of the primes - an algorithm that computes the next prime in the sequence, having used all of the previous primes as input information - once the two hurdles [i] and [ii] have been passed by. Then the sequence can be explained. I have called this basic algoithm: The Evolutionary Algorithm [T.E.A.] because while the multiplicands on the left sides of the equations are fixed in value, once the first two have been assigned [d[1] and d[2] and the others d[3], … d[j + 1] subsequently computed, the actual number of such multiplicands increases indefinitely without limit by one at a time with each sucessive step - hence an evolving [evolutionary] algorithm.
The above insights came to me around February 19th 2011. [If anyone has done the same as above before now, then I would certainly like to know abot this.]
I do hope that my comment is not too long - William P. G. Shaw. [Februay 25th, 2011].

In comment No. 37 above, I must apologise for a few minor, but I hope obvious errors: a typographical error: on the first line, there should be a space after the comma, then " I am convinced … and somewhere I wrote " bot 2. This should surely be " about " and " therby " should be " thereby " and I noticed an extra un-needed space after an opening bracket. Similar comment applies to my comment No. 36.
Although I read over my comment as well as I could in the time [and energy] available to me, I tend to get word blind, that is I look at the print but do not always recognize a mistake. [but I did check over the equations very well] - W. P. G. Shaw.

My final comment on my comments above is this: to get a better understanding of the infinite [Euclid’ s theorem] series of primes: [3, 5, 7, 11, 13, … ], just imagine if you like, the series printed in say Font No. 12, Times New Roman-[my favourite style], then this series of primes would stretch beyond Pluto to the end of the universe and then beyond that, and never come to an end. Just imagine that.

This is an excellent explanation. I have also written a series of posts in my blog about pi. You may want to check it out:

http://mathandmultimedia.com/2010/06/14/prime-series-1/

A bit of a late reply to Arun, but it’s used for cryptography because you can’t get the prime numbers used to encode something. Look at RSA system for the most popular cyptographic system in the world now.

A formula takes two different prime numbers and uses them to generate some other numbers. Those other numbers are used to get keys to encrypt and decrypt. If you don’t know those prime numbers, you won’t be able to figure out the keys. Hacking it means that you’ll be trying to “brute force” by testing out every prime number and see if you can get one that generates a key used to decrypt a file.

Very nice article and some great comments.

I was wondering if anyone knew of any research or insight regarding the square roots of primes. eg do they exhibit certain properties for different primes ie large primes, messerne primes, their distribution, etc. (of course they are all irrational…)

It’s strange but I had a dream about the squares of smaller primes displaying more “chaotic” behavior in their decimal expansion (what ever that means, it was a dream!)

ok these are all great comments…but i think i am over thinking primes…well i am still not understanding them… ughh…i just wont give up untill i have mastered these or at least come to an understanding of how they work…someone help me please!!! 21 yr old …lost in her textbooks!!!

@Ryan: Really interesting question, I don’t know much about the distribution unfortunately

@brittany: Here’s another analogy that might help: Each number is a “word” and primes are the “letters” that make it up, assuming we can only multiply. So 100 is made of 10 * 10 = 2 * 5 * 2 * 5.

Interestingly, there is an infinite number of primes (“letters”), like an alphabet with an infinite number of letters (imagine chinese… there is no limit to how many symbols they can make :)). It’s not a perfect analogy but it’s another way to see the primes as “building blocks” for other numbers.

[…] dim corners of my mind. I found this site first when looking for a better understanding of prime numbers and how they factor in to the fabric of the universe. I have not yet ordered his book, but have […]

Excellent Explanation… and so the discussion.

I’ve been skimming through sites related to math, to prepare for the ACT. I’ve been out of school awhile. With the approach taken on this site I actually enjoy learning about numbers. It’s presented here like a game.

Oop, sorry, forgot to specify the journal:

Aditi Journal of Computational Mathematics
Volume 1 ( 2013 ) , Number 1

huen yeong kong

Please refer to:
Development of General Twin-Prime Number System by the Method of Indirect Induction
Huen Yeong Kong
Pages 1-12
View Details Abstract References

Now we have a pure prime number system which could map uniquely into all
natural numbers from 2 to infinity without breaks. But the Iconic Symmetrical
General Twin-Prime number sytem is actually an object-oriented number system
formed by prime-triplets based on the Half-Sum formula. The development
shows that consecutive primes does not form a number system. It is the Iconic
SGTP number system which reveals in depth how primes interact with the natural
number system.

One more thing that many find interesting about a cabin themed home decorating plan is the fact it simply exudes temperature year round. From the dark colors towards the flannel materials and this soft homespun simplicity in the design many find it simply irresistible. One thing that is obvious in this style of decorating is the fact it appeals to individuals who love home and fireplace and warmth and good will alot more than modern touches plus design elements. This is not a hard plastic form of design style and it shouldn’t endeavor to become one as both the styles are almost systematically opposed to one another.

The simple in the complex.
The complex in the simple.

Though I can’t explain why, I’ve been fascinated with prime numbers since I first learned about them as a child. On the one hand they seem so simple, yet their subtlety confounds great minds. They appear as the most basic of all building blocks, but they do so much.

I have, over the years, formed a theory; not about prime numbers, but about why they are so difficult to comprehend. Here’s my theory in terse verbiage (I don’t think Babelfish translates geek to English, so I’ll give you the English version after):
In viewing the body of number theory as a graphed network of axiomatic process, prime numbers (as they naturally are) inhabit a more fundamental tier than the mathematic community since antiquity would have us believe.

Here’s what I mean in plain words.
As you consider a bunch of different processes, and as you go from the more advanced down to the more fundamental, the ‘doing’ of it gets easier but the ‘explaining’ of it gets harder.
Here’s an Example for Free (exempli gratis if you didn’t know where e.g. came from)
Exponentiation.
I’ll give you two numbers, 2 and 3, then ask of you two tasks:
-first perform the calculation, 2^3 (easy, it’s eight)
-second, tell me why it is so
Takes a little more thought, but not too hard. It’s a shorthand for the more fundamental operation of multiplication. Take 2, write it out 3 times, multiply them all. To understand this, or to explain it, you have to understand exponents not at the level they are, but the level underneath them.
Multiplication.
Same two numbers.
-first can you do the work, 2*3=6 (easier than exponents)
-second, why is it so (harder than exponents)
It’s the same process, just a shorthand for the more fundamental addition. It’s more difficult because it is more mundane. We don’t acknowledge the same need to explain a more simple concept.
Addition.
Same numbers.
-first, can you add them (really? it’s 5 don’t waste my time)
-second, can you tell me why it is so?
Yeah, sure its 5 'cause you take 2, add another 3 and it’s 5. Of course this is not an explanation. It’s a re statement of the work you did to get the answer. If you want a few $10 words, it is circular reasoning in axiomatic process; it uses a statement to prove itself (though my fellow physicists sometimes have no problem with doing the same thing and just calling it ‘bootstrapping’ i.e. ‘pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps’). If you were paying attention to e.g. earlier, i.e. abbreviates id est. Latin for ‘that is’. With enough time and false starts you may eventually be able to explain why addition works that way. You would have to get to something number theory calls the basic counting principle and fundamental set theory, though most normal people don’t think in such fancy terminology.

My theory on primes basically says, we think primes are ‘up here’ somewhere, but I say they are way ‘down here’, near the bottom, and thus very difficult to get at their foundation.

All texts I have read, when defining what a prime is and/or how to find them, give a process similar to the Sieve of Eratosthones. Mine also follows this model with one important distinction. The general model to test a number for primality is as follows:
Pick your number to test, call it n. Consider that it is a candidate for primality. We haven’t yet proven its is, haven’t yet proven it isn’t, it’s just a candidate. Begin a process of comparing your integer n to another number, let’s start at 1. Perform the division n/1 not all the way, just enough to see if the result is an integer, then move to the next number. Perform this test using all numbers up to n (later we would learn we don’t even need to go all the way to n, sqrt(n) will do). The test is one to exclude it as a candidate, if the test is ever positive you can stop, it’s not prime. Stated a better way, a prime number is special in that there exist only 2 numbers that allow the test to pass, 1 and the number n, all other numbers cause the test to fail.
This test process, of course requires addition, subtraction, multiplication, division.

My process is similar but without +,-,*,/.

Consider a number n as a candidate for primality. Begin a test process to exclude it. If it survives as a candidate up to a sufficient point then it is prime. So what is the test if not +,-,,/? The test is related to the fact that a number is prime regardless of base system, that is 11 is prime in binary, octal, base 10, hexadecimal and any other possible base system.
Start by writing out all the numbers 0 through n in the smallest possible base system, 2. Underneath write out the same numbers in base 3, try to line them up like:
0 1 10 11 100 101…
0 1 2 10 11 12…

You now have an n by n grid.
Start with the first line. Begin with the left. Look to the right until you’ve exhausted the first digit, the first multi digit number that has a 0 at the end. You would strike it out but it’s the first so it gets amnesty. Cross out all other numbers in this line that end in 0. Proceed to the next line down, base 3. Repeat the same process. By the time you get to all n lines of n numbers if your number remains a candidate then it is prime. You wouldn’t have to go all the way to n, but I haven’t found a way to express sqrt(n) without +,-,
,/ in its axiomatic lineage.
This method is very similar but doesn’t require division, rather a counting process of equal sizes in base 2 to eliminate numbers that we would otherwise described as being divisible by 2, then the same counting process in base 3 etc.

With this method not only the number 1, but also 0 survive as candidates for primality and thus I would call them prime. I have not found a text that specifically calls 1 not prime. Rather, when text books list prime numbers they just start at 2. By the classic definition 0 would not be prime because the quantity 0/0 is indeterminate.

If my conjecture has merit to justify a definition of primality it would explain why theorems concerning primes are so elusive.

Hope I haven’t confused you more than myself, and to borrow a phrase from Kalid, Happy Math!

Thank you Kalid. For the first time I have glimmering as to why primes are important and unique. Why do primes have to have a pattern? Can’t they simply be random?

@Ryan

If you’re still reading this after three years, you should listen to to your dreams, the golden door to the unconscious. It makes sense to me t

@Ryan

As I was saying, it makes sense to me that there may be degrees of randomness, just like there are degrees of infinity. If you worked on it, you could come up with something, or at least be happy with the effort.

Dear Kalid

I have bought your book Maths - better explained , few days back , it is very well explained .All what ever i read was really helpful in either physics or electricals . One thing i need to ask you that this prime number topic is not in book it seems. Please confirm .Also you have published only one book or there are more .please mail me your reply .

Onece again thank you very much for making maths interesting .

Depite appearances to the contrary, you do not need to know ALL primes up to a point to find the NEXT prime.
Ex. 15 = 3 * 5
To tell that 15 is not prime, you need only know that 15 mod 3 = 0.

Prime P is not needed in checking a range until the first semiprime which consists of primes not in the set of primes before prime P.
This is because, no matter how many primes are multiplied together, the result’s prime factors are ONLY those primes. (11 * 13 = 143. 143 is only divisible by (1, 11, 13, 143))
The first such semiprime is prime P squared, because ANY greater prime S, times prime P, results in a number greater than prime P squared. (5 * 5 = 25.
5 * 7 = 35. 35 > 25)

Thus, to check if the number N the next prime NP, you need only check if N is divisible by at MOST the first prime L to have a square greater than (or equal to) N, and all primes befor prime L.

This is usually done by checking the primes UP TO the square root of the number N.