Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

prime numbers

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-29 12:00

what do you make of the fact that prime numbers show patterns when displayed along a number spiral?

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-29 12:58

I think number spirals are designed to show patterns in numbers

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-29 15:21

That's just their way of keeping us on our toes.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-29 16:14

i make of it that there are alot of polynoms which have alot of primes in them

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-29 19:24

primes...spirals...oh my God!!!!
>:O

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-30 5:56

printed shit out, going to show my uncle later, bricks will be shat!

>:| this are srs bsns!!!

:/

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-30 23:10

I think you found the portal to hell

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-01 23:25

semi-related:

http://xkcd.com/10/

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-03 22:01

>>1
A Xarn fan on /sci/? Maybe this board has value after all!

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-04 2:39

>>9
What's a Xarn?

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-04 19:33

The ulam Spiral

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-04 21:00

Not exactly that surprising.

If you imagine eliminating all the numbers that can't be primes from the spiral, you'd start by erasing all the numbers divisible by two (apart from two itself, of course).

Already, you've got a bunch of regular lines and holes. You get more after you erase all the numbers divisible by three, and so on. Of course it's going to look like it has a pattern, because it *does* have a pattern.

Just not one that tells us anything more about the primes than we already know.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-04 21:26

>>12
You got it backward. You start with a lot of regular lines and holes, but they get less regular as you proceed. That's why the Ulam spiral looks the most regular near the center, and gets more chaotic as you move out.
Here's a big one Xarn did: http://cairnarvon.rotahall.org/pics/ulamspiral.png

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-05 11:37

>>13
At various levels of zoom it appears to be quite regular.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-05 16:07

>>14
Thank you for that expert assessment. You're wrong. And even if what you said were literally true, it would still be wrong.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-07 8:14

>>15
Even if was true its wrong, because the Bible says so.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-07 16:31

>>16
hold on one second, flapjack!

:/

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-10 0:28

if you were to have a pattern out of prime numbers, how would you have the numbering system be ordered? Is there a number missing? Is there too many numbers when it comes to 10-base, 8-base, 16-base, or 2-base? What is your hypothesis?

:/

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-10 6:57

Here's some enlightenment for you. Even if someone seemed to tell everything truthfully, it is lacking in entirety. However, to say that what someone has said to be true is actually wrong is a flagrant statement of the same principle in effect. This person too is lacking truth in entirety.
It wouldn't matter how far you go, there is always something more to learn about what you are talking about. It's when you don't understand in full is when you need to look deeper for something you've never known before. Of course, if you don't know what it is, would you see it?

Philosophy and the principle of uncertainty both point to this fact of our limited perceivable point of views. Only in a collective could the pieces begin to fall into place. Knowing anything in part is not knowing it fully and to not know it fully is to not know anything about it at all....yet we still proclaim to know...what kind of person is this that proclaims to know...and yet...???

"Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." -1 Corinthians 13:12

The only way that intelligence and knowledge should be pervade by those who do not know fully is in vague terms to be inclusive of the new things to be learned as then not to exclude them and thereby be ignorant of them...nor to become ignorant of our own ignorance. Deny and ignore this at your own peril.

:/

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-10 18:59

There are still patterns except at few zoom levels where its chaotic.
Prime numbers SHOULD have patterns, since you remove lines of 2's,3's,5's,7's...multiples from the pic it would have symmetric gaps.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-10 23:23

>>19
I understood half of what you said in the beginning and nothing of what you said at the end.  Your grammar didn't help.

What does it have to do with prime numbers?

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-11 5:39

>>21
To know, is to know fully. No human can know fully, therefore no human knows anything at all. Ergo, we must always strive to learn for we are eternally ignorant though we think ourselves smart.
So if you are inquiring in regards to something to which I am interested, expect to get vague responses because I want to include potentialities and possibilities not exclude them just because I may think I know something about it.

You know, I do want to learn stuff too, not just profess to know shit that I couldn't possibly know in absolute detail.

Why do I make such claims? The moment you think you know something is the moment you cease learning about it. You stop asking questions when you know the answers. And you wonder where your inspiration has gone.

Jesus wept.

:/

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-11 10:53

>>22
What does [this] have to do with prime numbers?

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-11 11:04

>>23
Stop replying to this thing's long-winded, pseudo-intellectual drivel. It probably doesn't even know what communitive and associative properties in mathematics are. http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/77139

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-11 14:34

>>20
It will leave regular gaps, until you get to the point where there's so many adjacent single-number gaps that the whole becomes irregular. That's the entire fucking point.
Nobody is saying that there are no patterns arbitrarily far away from the centre of the spiral, just that there are fewer and the whole thing is more chaotic. You can try to prove that, or you can just look at the fucking picture, but your personal incredulity is not a counter-argument.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-11 14:52

what if you have different numbering systems?

What are the prime numbers of those?

Is there any pattern?

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-11 16:05

>>26
If you'd bothered to think about it for half a second you'd realise prime numbers are independent of base.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-11 21:29

>>27
but in a spiral pattern, the pattern would be different; NO?

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-11 21:44

BASE!  How low can you go?

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-14 22:43

>>29
primes of a geometric number system?

1|2|4|8|16|32|64|128|256|512 <=number system direction ->
0|9|8|7| 6| 5| 4|  3|  2|  1 <=tier level direction <-

:/

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-16 16:31

>>28
No, of course not.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-17 3:57

>>31
y?

:/

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-28 3:00

oh yeah, seems like someone tried to use "induction" on primes. Lol, what a nut sack.

:/

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-28 4:01

if you move a prime in a field it induces a headache

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-29 14:10

WTF!!!
PRIME NUMBERS HAVE A PATTERN?!!!
GTFO

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-30 4:25

>>35
yeah, that's what everyone who's never used induction on primes has asserted without the evidence to back up their word. Seems almost like human nature, if you ask me.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-30 12:14

>>32
The base of the graph is 1 ...

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-02 5:45

>>37
I don't get it.

:/

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List