Formula for Primes, Number of Primes

For a long time, mathematicians had been trying to see if there was a formula that could generate primes, writes Marcus du Sautoy in Music of the Primes. Euler found a curious formula that did just that. Upto a (very small) number. The formula is absurdly easy to understand:

x2 + x + 41, for all values of x from 0 to 39

He then noticed that the formula:

x2 + x + q

would spit out primes if q = 2, 3, 5, 11 and 17 when fed numbers 0 to (q – 2).

 

I was surprised there’s actually a formula for finding all primes. Yes, all primes. Assign any integer values to the 26 letters, a to z. Then calculate the equation below using the values you selected:


If the answer is positive, then that number (the answer) is a prime. The problem with this formula, though, is that it will throw up negative results a lot of the time – those don’t count as prime numbers, obviously. But all the positive ones do. And every single prime can be found via some combo of values assigned to the ‘a’ to ‘z’ letters. Amazing!

~~

 

A different question is whether we can know how many primes lie below any given number. Carl Gauss stumbled onto what seemed to be a pattern when he was using a log tables book:


The pattern is in the last column. From 100 million onwards, the difference in the last column between successive rows seemed to always be 2.3! Was there something to this or was it just coincidence? But if there was a pattern, why was it 2.3, he wondered? Was there any significance to 2.3? There is, if you take the natural logarithm of the numbers in question. For example: loge 100 is 4.605 and loge 1000 = 6.908, giving a difference of about 2.3

 

Gauss didn’t say this formula was exactly correctly, just a good estimate:

Number of primes = N ÷ loge N

Gauss never made a big deal about this finding. Why not? Probably because he wasn’t sure if it was a real pattern, or just a freak coincidence that held upto some range and then fell apart. There was no proof.

 

Others, though, tried to improve on Gauss’ finding. Like Legendre:


For the range that people could test back then, this was definitely an improvement. But the appearance of the “ugly” 1.08366 factor made most mathematicians believe there was a “better and more natural” formula waiting to be found.

 

Gauss himself came up with an even better prediction later, the Prime Number Conjecture:

But it was Bernhard Riemann who came up with the exact formula:

I can’t explain it, but I was amazed that a formula even existed. If you’re interested in understanding the formula and the terms in it, you can check out this site.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why we Deceive Ourselves

In their book, The Elephant in the Brain , the authors describe this weird aspect of deception that we practice: deceiving ourselves! That is so weird: “If our minds contain maps of our worlds, what good comes from having an inaccurate version of these maps?” The Sigmund Freud school of thought treats self-deception as a defense mechanism, “a way for the ego to protect itself”. The mind seeks to protect itself from anxiety and other negative emotions. Many object to this reasoning: since accurate information is so critical to our survival, surely distorting information would be dangerous. Wouldn’t the goal of protecting our self-esteem have been better achieved by making the brain’s self-esteem mechanism stronger instead? The new school of thought explains self-deception as “primarily outward-facing, manipulative, and ultimately self-serving”. This is based on Thomas Schelling’s work on game theory: “In a variety of scenarios, limiting or sabotaging yourself is the winn...
Read more

Europe #3 - Innsbruck

The last city we visited in Europe was Innsbruck in the Austrian Alps. After the cold and windy experience (at times) of Paris and Netherlands, Innsbruck was a wonderful change – it didn’t feel that cold, it was not windy all of which made it easy to walk around. Something absolutely necessary given how scenic the place is.   Since the hotel check-in time was much later in the day, we left the baggage and went to the Swarovski HQ-cum-museum about an hour by bus from Innsbruck. The crystal exhibits were brilliant – colorful, bright, shiny. Jewellery aside, it was a display of what one can do with crystals. While my wife and daughter loved the jewellery, I liked the superhero themed exhibits of Batman, Spiderman, the Hulk, and Star Wars. We didn’t buy anything there, though we did buy stuff in the Swarovski store in Innsbruck – jewellery, not the superhero stuff.   Innsbruck is a major tourist attraction during the skiing season but now in summer, we saw many groups of ...
Read more

The Thrill of the Chase

So many people complain about the difficulty in making decisions while shopping. Do you buy Brand X that gives 20% extra free? Or Brand Y that has 10% off? Or Brand Z that gives something else free with it? Do you buy that flat screen TV today or wait for the sale at Diwali? Now since the customer is king, shouldn’t companies be simplifying pricing choices? Like maybe offering consistently low prices all the time? Not so fast, as the US store, JC Penney discovered to its cost. Turns out that while people do complain about pricing choices, they are irrational. Also, they enjoy the thrill of the chase. Huh? The word “sale” acts like a siren call for many people: it lures them in to make that purchase. Consistently low prices don’t do the same. Besides, if a competitor lowers their prices just one time of the year, and Poof! Suddenly that low price claim becomes suspect in shoppers’ eyes. Then there are those sites that offer coupons: have lunch at Restaurant A on Wedne...
Read more