Pattern in primes

[Tesla]

I have found a SIMPLE mathmatical pattern in primes! It is a laughably elementary formula showing an obvious pattern. I quit laughing when I started hitting big numbers though. I know a little java but not quite enough to make a program to do it all for me. Help if your interested. What've you got to loose?

Need some motivation? Well it's one of the millenium problems worth one million dollars for the answer.

Don't hesitate to reply, "lol". Sticks and stones.

Thanks.

[mkirkpatrick]

I have found a SIMPLE mathmatical pattern in primes! It is a laughably elementary formula showing an obvious pattern. I quit laughing when I started hitting big numbers though. I know a little java but not quite enough to make a program to do it all for me. Help if your interested. What've you got to loose?

Need some motivation? Well it's one of the millenium problems worth one million dollars for the answer.

Don't hesitate to reply, "lol". Sticks and stones.

Thanks.

Thank you Telsa,can you explain more,and send me an advance on the million
bucks?BTW all things have a pattern,thats just the way it is!

kind regards michael.

[Tesla]

Sure thing! Visit this link, http://www.claymath.org/millennium/, and get back to me.

Thanks.

[Tesla]

By the way it's under the Riemann Hypothesis.

[mkirkpatrick]

Sure thing! Visit this link, http://www.claymath.org/millennium/, and get back to me.

Thanks.

I have visited the site,and now i have got back to you?
What happens now?
kind regards michael.

[Tesla]

Here we go:

3(x)-(1,2)

Beautiful! But hardly refined as you will see.

Here are the rules:

If the x you are plugging in is odd then subtract (the even) 2

If the x you are plugging in is even then subtract (the odd) 1

Now plug 1 in for x and you get 1, the first prime (I know that 1 is'nt accepted as a prime and 2 is but this will change that)

Now plug in 2 for x (remember 2 is even so you subtract 1) and you get 5, the third prime (where'd 3 go? It does't show because it's fixed in the equation itself, I just call it an understood prime)

Now plug 3 in for x and you get 7.
Now 4 (=11).
Now 5 (=13).
Now 6 (=17).
-----------------------------------
9 is the first number (in a list of many) you'll plug in and not get a prime out.

Here's why (rule number two):

You can use this formula to produce sequencial primes forever but their are hangnails, here's how to clip them...

The first NP (non-prime) you'll get is 25 (3(9)-2)
25 is 5*5

The second NP you'll get is 35 (3(12)-1)
35 is 5*7

Another is 55 (5*11)

Another is 65 (5*13)

Notice the numbers italicized are the numbers produced by the formula (going in ascending order from 5); so the next hangnail will be 5*17, then 5*19, then *23, then *25 (it's not prime but still on the list: 3(9)-2=25), and so on...

Now go to 7 (next on the list)
7*7 is 49 an NP (3(17)-2=49)

7*11 is 77 (3(26)-1=77)

7*13 is 91 (3(31)-2=91)

Now 11
11*11 is 121 (3(41)-2=121)
11*13
11*17
11*19, 11*23, 11*25, 11*29, and so on and so forth...

But don't really clip the hangnails; just flag them because you will need them in order to find others.
-----------------------------------
It's a pattern, it's in order, and it's raw and unrefined. It is elementary, yet infallable. I just need to figure out how to use it with the Riemann Hypothesis (if possible). In any case it's still a pattern! Chew on that!

You might want to read it again. It gets to be a headache and thats why I want to make a java program of it all. Anyhow, tell me what you think.

Thanks.

[mkirkpatrick]

Here we go:

3(x)-(1,2)

Beautiful! But hardly refined as you will see.

Here are the rules:

If the x you are plugging in is odd then subtract (the even) 2

If the x you are plugging in is even then subtract (the odd) 1

Now plug 1 in for x and you get 1, the first prime (I know that 1 is'nt accepted as a prime and 2 is but this will change that)

Now plug in 2 for x (remember 2 is even so you subtract 1) and you get 5, the third prime (where'd 3 go? It does't show because it's fixed in the equation itself, I just call it an understood prime)

Now plug 3 in for x and you get 7.
Now 4 (=11).
Now 5 (=13).
Now 6 (=17).
-----------------------------------
9 is the first number (in a list of many) you'll plug in and not get a prime out.

Here's why (rule number two):

You can use this formula to produce sequencial primes forever but their are hangnails, here's how to clip them...

The first NP (non-prime) you'll get is 25 (3(9)-2)
25 is 5*5

The second NP you'll get is 35 (3(12)-1)
35 is 5*7

Another is 55 (5*11)

Another is 65 (5*13)

Notice the numbers italicized are the numbers produced by the formula (going in ascending order from 5); so the next hangnail will be 5*17, then 5*19, then *23, then *25 (it's not prime but still on the list: 3(9)-2=25), and so on...

Now go to 7 (next on the list)
7*7 is 49 an NP (3(17)-2=49)

7*11 is 77 (3(26)-1=77)

7*13 is 91 (3(31)-2=91)

Now 11
11*11 is 121 (3(41)-2=121)
11*13
11*17
11*19, 11*23, 11*25, 11*29, and so on and so forth...

But don't really clip the hangnails; just flag them because you will need them in order to find others.
-----------------------------------
It's a pattern, it's in order, and it's raw and unrefined. It is elementary, yet infallable. I just need to figure out how to use it with the Riemann Hypothesis (if possible). In any case it's still a pattern! Chew on that!

You might want to read it again. It gets to be a headache and thats why I want to make a java program of it all. Anyhow, tell me what you think.

Thanks.

Thanks forthe info,will take me a while to get my head around it though,andit is 1.40am,almost time for bed.keep it touch.

regards michael.

[Tesla]

Alright then. Will do.

[mms]

Interesting!!

Computer generated implementation of your function and two rules
yield all prime numbers as you state (at least as far as I have tested).

[Tesla]

I know! It's exciting (for me)! About how far have you tested?