Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #424631 > unrolled thread

4- nested Primitive Pythagorean Triples// AP wants to do one better on Ulam's Prime Spiral

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  4- nested Primitive Pythagorean Triples// AP wants to do one better on Ulam's Prime Spiral Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 18:03 -0700
    Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-01 01:27 +0000

#424631 — 4- nested Primitive Pythagorean Triples// AP wants to do one better on Ulam's Prime Spiral

4-On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 12:44:52 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math: 
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2018 10:40:50 -0700 (PDT) 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> 
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-atom-universe@googlegroups.com> 
Message-Id: <8c028903-1597-4de0-9eb5-409b5645fb14@googlegroups.com> 
Subject: nested Primitive Pythagorean Triples// AP wants to do one better on 
 Ulam's Prime Spiral 

nested Primitive Pythagorean Triples// AP wants to do one better on Ulam's Prime Spiral 

Alright, so far I have investigated spiraling PPT 

3,4,5   
5,12,13   
8,15,17   
7,24,25   
20,21,29   
12,35,37   
9,40,41   
28,45,53   
.  . 
.  . 
.  . 

Trouble with this is the spirals get large fast and so we have to know too much in order to be practical, whereas in Ulam, all he did was count the counting numbers in a square spiral pattern. So I cannot outbest Ulam unless I make it as simple as Ulam, not something far more complex and complicated. I have to match Ulam on simplicity in order to beat him at a prime predictor. 

My second attempt is this Blob Rectangle where I start by a "union" of 5,12,13 and 8,15,17 to put together as best as possible a rectangle and then reading off the primes. But trouble here again-- more complicated than Ulam. 

So today, let me introduce something as simple as Ulam, and go from there. Now it is recognized that just listing and fetching the PPT is more complicated than Ulam counting numbers in a square spiral pattern. But then again Ulam's Prime Spiral has only a accuracy (I am guessing) at best 50% accuracy in general. So for me to outbest Ulam, I need something simple yet able to boost the accuracy to 90%. 

So, for simplicity sake, let me try this. 

We have a list of PPT and we nest, nest nest, the prior smaller PPT into the next larger PPT at its right angle. 

So we nest 3,4,5 inside of 5,12,13 


|            . 
|5 .                    .13 
|3      . 5                                   . 
|____4_________12_______________ 

depiction of a 3,4,5 PPT nested inside a 5,12,13 PPT 

Now, we just read off the primes and look for some sort of pattern 

We get 3,5, from 3,4,5, and now need 7. The 7 comes from 3+4 in 3,4,5, or it comes from 12-5 = 7 in 5,12,13. Next we need 11. If we include all the numbers of a PPT so that 3,4,5 is actually a quinapole of 3,4,5,6,7 then we get 11 from 5+6, or 4+7. The quinapole of 5,12,13 is 5,12,13,30,17 and I see no 11 out of there. 

Now we need 13 and it is immediate from 5,12,13, next I need 17 and it is 5+12 or is 17 from the quinapole of 5,12,13. Or a 17 from 8,15,17. Next I need 19 and apparently have to go to the next higher PPT of 8,15,17. The quinapole of 8,15,17 is 8,15,17,60,23. 

So, I need a 19 desperately,,,,, more later 

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#424632 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:

>What is so hard about admitting your wrong.

Yes, you should try it sometimes. When you post something wrong and
someone points it out to you, you NEVER admit you are wrong. Instead you
run away, delete your post, double down and start a new post with the same
mistake, as well as starting other posts attacking the person who pointed
out your flaw.

> Wrong about the proton being 938 when it really is 840MeV.

There is no evidence whatsoever for an 840MeV proton. The folks at
Lawrence Berkeley Labs (that is, REAL scientists) have measured the
mass of the proton to many decimal places. I am not going to look up the
exact number other than to say it begins with "938."

> Wrong about the Ellipse for the ellipse is never a Conic section, always
> a cylinder section.

Sorry, I've seen at least 4 actual math proofs that the ellipse is a conic
section, and so far you haven't been able to provide a proof that it 
isn't.

So I have to choose between "The Ellipse isn't a conic section because
Archie Plutonium says so!" or "The Ellipse is a conic section because
multiple math proofs prove that it is."  Guess what I, or anyone else
will choose.

>But please, do not be racist mathematicians, racist physicists

and who are the racist mathematicians and physicists here? The only hint
of that is that Indian crank who believes his nutty ideas don't get used
by scientists because he's an Indian. Without evidence, of course.

>Harvard's Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, Adam Cohen, Eugene
>Demler, why cannot Moroney admit 938 is not 12% short of 945 ?

Once again, 938 MeV is 8.88 times 105.7 MeV, which is 12% of a muon short
of 951.3 MeV, the mass of 9 muons (your 945 MeV number is also wrong!).

>MIT's Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov,

Once again, what's with the stalker lists? You can't answer that, can you.

I see that you have a new pet to keep the cubbyhole critter company.
How dumb and stoopid.

[snip autistic spew]

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web