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

Groups > sci.physics > #562684 > unrolled thread

Mathematicians shocked to find pattern in 'random' prime numbers

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Mathematicians shocked to find pattern in 'random' prime numbers alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) - 2016-03-15 21:06 +0000
    Re: Mathematicians shocked to find pattern in 'random' prime numbers "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-03-15 18:42 -0700
    Re: Mathematicians shocked to find pattern in 'random' prime numbers alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) - 2016-03-16 02:04 +0000
    Re: Mathematicians shocked to find pattern in 'random' prime numbers xxein1@att.net - 2016-03-15 22:37 -0700

#562684 — Mathematicians shocked to find pattern in 'random' prime numbers

Mathematicians shocked to find pattern in 'random' prime numbers

newscientist.com
Monday, March 14, 2016

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2080613-mathematicians-shocked-to-find-pattern-in-random-prime-numbers/

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://bit.do/jaimaharaj

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#562741

Jay Stevens akack "Dr. Jai Maharaj" <alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com>
cut & pasted:
> Mathematicians shocked to find pattern in 'random' prime numbers
> newscientist.com // Monday, March 14, 2016
> <
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2080613-mathematicians-shocked-to-find-pattern-in-random-prime-numbers/>
wherein the salient and operative lines are:
<edited for brevity and clarity>
>
"Just as Einstein's theory of relativity is a ***more complicated
version** of Newton's theory of gravity, the Hardy-Littlewood's
k-tuple conjecture is essentially the assumption that primes
are random which holds for  99% of the time but you need
that last 1% to make it valid, which is seen by this last-digit
k-tuple pattern, that place restrictions on to where the last
digit of each prime can fall.
>
What's more, as the primes stretch to infinity, they do eventually
shake off the pattern & give the random distribution as expected"
...  just like in Einstein' theory which is expected to hold at
very large values where dilations and contraction go towards
infinity, but where restriction come into place for where the results
may fall.
>
This then makes Einstein Relativity conjectures to be just like this
k-tuple, which IOW makes Einstein;'s Relativity out to be totally
USELESS for any practical purpose in the real world and it
descends into the  reams of philosophy where religious undertones
arise that manifest themselves by Einstein Dingleberries
who worship  Albert's Sphincter... Pity, but ....    ROTFLMAO

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#562745

Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> 
> Mathematicians shocked to find pattern in 'random' prime numbers
> 
> newscientist.com
> Monday, March 14, 2016
> 
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2080613-mathematicians-shocked-to-find-pattern-in-random-prime-numbers/

Excerpt:

[...]
Although whether a number is prime or not is pre-
determined, mathematicians don't have a way to predict
which numbers are prime, and so tend to treat them as if
they occur randomly. Now Kannan Soundararajan

http://math.stanford.edu/~ksound/

and Robert Lemke Oliver

http://robert%20lemke%20oliver/

of Stanford University in California have discovered that
isn't quite right.
[...]

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#562781

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 5:06:16 PM UTC-4, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> Mathematicians shocked to find pattern in 'random' prime numbers
> 
> newscientist.com
> Monday, March 14, 2016
> 
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2080613-mathematicians-shocked-to-find-pattern-in-random-prime-numbers/
> 
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> Om Shanti
> 
> http://bit.do/jaimaharaj

xxein:  I especially liked the line close to the end.   "If what you take for granted is wrong, that makes you rethink some other things you know."  <actually don't know>  Or as I like to state it, 'If your starting assumptions are wrong, anything built upon them is wrong'.  But no-one ever thinks their basic assumptions are wrong because of a consensus.  It would be heretical to question them.  So they don't and they are wrong.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web