Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #562742
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Mathematician pair find prime numbers aren't as random as thought |
| Date | 2016-03-15 18:46 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <ncadpd$vm$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <8JGdncG8ddRoLnXLnZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: > Mathematician pair find prime numbers aren't as random as thought >> http://phys.org/news/2016-03-mathematician-pair-prime-random-thought.html 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 >
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Mathematician pair find prime numbers aren't as random as thought Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 20:16 -0500
Re: Mathematician pair find prime numbers aren't as random as thought "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-03-15 18:46 -0700
Re: Mathematician pair find prime numbers aren't as random as thought Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-03-16 10:02 +0000
Re: Mathematician pair find prime numbers aren't as random as thought "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-03-16 10:24 -0700
Re: Mathematician pair find prime numbers aren't as random as thought Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> - 2016-03-15 19:50 -0700
Re: Mathematician pair find prime numbers aren't as random as thought noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 14:11 -0700
Re: Mathematician pair find prime numbers aren't as random as thought David Bernier <david250@videotron.ca> - 2016-03-16 19:02 -0400
Re: Mathematician pair find prime numbers aren't as random as thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-16 23:38 -0800
csiph-web