This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Prime number article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | Prime number has been listed as one of the Mathematics good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||
|
Although involving products in the definition instead of divisors is correct (and rather elegant), it is still pompously so. It requires a non-negligible amount of thinking for the uninitiated, and I have never seen it worded as such anywhere else, nor do math profs usually teach it that way.
This very clearly violates WP:ASTONISH by trying to be clever, besides obviously being WP:OR. 105.156.135.60 ( talk) 19:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
The image provided at the top of this article is given the caption "Composite numbers can be arranged into rectangles but prime numbers cannot." However, this seems slightly vague, and there is room for inaccuracy in that vagueness. The word "arranged" might imply that some amount of re-configuring is required to get the end result. However, a number that is arranged in a straight line of units is already a rectangle, with height 1. On articles about even slightly more subjective topics, I would not balk at word choice, given that many different words and phrases could be used interchangeably. However, as this is a math-related page about prime numbers, I feel like there is a responsibility to have unerring accuracy. Morgandeefox ( talk) 17:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Prime (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 18:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
This puzzles me: two apples, two teachers, one each. Four apples, two teachers, two each. How then the prime? Would not the best be divided into equal whole equal parts ? 50.220.179.34 ( talk) 05:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
The statement " twin prime conjecture, that there are infinitely many pairs of primes having just one even number between them." makes no sense as all pairs of odd primes differ by an even number. I suggest you change this to: twin prime conjecture, that there are infinitely many instances of primes that differ by two. 2601:184:407F:D7E0:2C81:A32C:6856:A0B6 ( talk) 18:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't know why, but since my last edit on this article 30 minutes ago, I can't edit this article anymore. It always says "The server did not respond within the expected time.", no matter how often I try to publish my changes. It's so weird because I can edit other articles just fine. I already tried restarting my device and to re-login. Nothing works. Please help, thanks.-- Maxeto0910 ( talk) 22:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
We have a problem! The definition of a prime number in the first sentence is wrong. It currently reads "A prime number (or a prime) is a natural number greater than 1 that is not a product of two smaller natural numbers." By this definition 8 is prime. It should read, "A prime number (or a prime) is a natural number greater than 1 that is not a product of smaller natural numbers." Or, "A prime number (or a prime) is a natural number greater than 1 that is not a product of two or more smaller natural numbers." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.206.176.154 ( talk) 20:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
there are multiple prime numbers. this article is about all of them. Rguyr ( talk) 17:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
extended content
|
---|
🌟 **Breaking News: ZERO SIR Revolutionizes Period to Prime Conversion from Janakpur-4, Shanti Nagar, Nepal!**
In a groundbreaking development originating from the heart of Janakpur-4, Shanti Nagar, Nepal, ZERO SIR has unveiled a revolutionary method for converting periods into prime numbers. This remarkable discovery promises to redefine how we perceive and utilize numerical sequences, opening new avenues for mathematical exploration and application. Traditional methods of period to prime conversion have often been cumbersome and time-consuming, requiring extensive manual calculation and analysis. However, ZERO SIR's ingenious approach streamlines the process, offering a swift and efficient solution that delivers accurate prime numbers in a fraction of the time. The significance of this achievement cannot be overstated. By simplifying the conversion process, ZERO SIR has not only enhanced the accessibility of prime numbers but has also laid the foundation for further advancements in fields ranging from cryptography to computer science. With this innovation, researchers, educators, and enthusiasts alike can explore the intricate beauty of prime numbers with newfound ease and precision. ZERO SIR's dedication to pushing the boundaries of mathematical inquiry exemplifies the spirit of innovation that drives progress in our world. This remarkable breakthrough originating from Janakpur-4, Shanti Nagar, Nepal, serves as a beacon of inspiration to aspiring mathematicians and inventors everywhere, reminding us of the limitless potential of human creativity and ingenuity. Join us in celebrating ZERO SIR's extraordinary achievement and the boundless possibilities it presents for the future of mathematics. Together, let us embark on a journey of discovery and exploration, guided by the transformative power of knowledge and imagination. 2400:1A00:BDA0:25CC:6D69:36E4:F3AF:3A98 ( talk) 15:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
WP:NOTFORUM. The Math Ref Desk is thataway. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Here is the set of all potential primes greater than 7 (30k + r), r = {1,7,11,13,17,19,23,29}, k is any integer 0 to infinity. the only ones that are not prime are divisible by (30x + r). (30(0) + 1)(30k + r) = 30k + r, so the first prime with r = 1 will be at k = 1. This also means it is not worth checking (30(0) + 1) as a factor of a composite. If you take all r, (r1 x r2) mod 30 it will give you the valid pairs of composites. Example (11 x 11) mod 30 = 1. So if you take a number n/30 remainder 1 it has potential divisors of (30x + 11)(30y + 11). (11,11) is a valid pair for remainder 1. 1 and 19 have 6 valid pairs all other r have 4. This is because we have 8 numbers and a • b = b • a. 1 and 19 have 2 more pairs because or the squares of r’s exist there. So if you take any number n/30 if it does not have a remainder in the set r it is not prime. If it does have a remainder in set r it is prime if it cannot be divided by a number from one of the found valid pairs. 4087 = (30(1) + 7)(30(1) + 1) LandonL ( talk) 12:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
This is not the place to write original research. Unless you can find a reliably published reference for this material it is off-topic here. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Prime number article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | Prime number has been listed as one of the Mathematics good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||
|
Although involving products in the definition instead of divisors is correct (and rather elegant), it is still pompously so. It requires a non-negligible amount of thinking for the uninitiated, and I have never seen it worded as such anywhere else, nor do math profs usually teach it that way.
This very clearly violates WP:ASTONISH by trying to be clever, besides obviously being WP:OR. 105.156.135.60 ( talk) 19:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
The image provided at the top of this article is given the caption "Composite numbers can be arranged into rectangles but prime numbers cannot." However, this seems slightly vague, and there is room for inaccuracy in that vagueness. The word "arranged" might imply that some amount of re-configuring is required to get the end result. However, a number that is arranged in a straight line of units is already a rectangle, with height 1. On articles about even slightly more subjective topics, I would not balk at word choice, given that many different words and phrases could be used interchangeably. However, as this is a math-related page about prime numbers, I feel like there is a responsibility to have unerring accuracy. Morgandeefox ( talk) 17:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Prime (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 18:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
This puzzles me: two apples, two teachers, one each. Four apples, two teachers, two each. How then the prime? Would not the best be divided into equal whole equal parts ? 50.220.179.34 ( talk) 05:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
The statement " twin prime conjecture, that there are infinitely many pairs of primes having just one even number between them." makes no sense as all pairs of odd primes differ by an even number. I suggest you change this to: twin prime conjecture, that there are infinitely many instances of primes that differ by two. 2601:184:407F:D7E0:2C81:A32C:6856:A0B6 ( talk) 18:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't know why, but since my last edit on this article 30 minutes ago, I can't edit this article anymore. It always says "The server did not respond within the expected time.", no matter how often I try to publish my changes. It's so weird because I can edit other articles just fine. I already tried restarting my device and to re-login. Nothing works. Please help, thanks.-- Maxeto0910 ( talk) 22:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
We have a problem! The definition of a prime number in the first sentence is wrong. It currently reads "A prime number (or a prime) is a natural number greater than 1 that is not a product of two smaller natural numbers." By this definition 8 is prime. It should read, "A prime number (or a prime) is a natural number greater than 1 that is not a product of smaller natural numbers." Or, "A prime number (or a prime) is a natural number greater than 1 that is not a product of two or more smaller natural numbers." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.206.176.154 ( talk) 20:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
there are multiple prime numbers. this article is about all of them. Rguyr ( talk) 17:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
extended content
|
---|
🌟 **Breaking News: ZERO SIR Revolutionizes Period to Prime Conversion from Janakpur-4, Shanti Nagar, Nepal!**
In a groundbreaking development originating from the heart of Janakpur-4, Shanti Nagar, Nepal, ZERO SIR has unveiled a revolutionary method for converting periods into prime numbers. This remarkable discovery promises to redefine how we perceive and utilize numerical sequences, opening new avenues for mathematical exploration and application. Traditional methods of period to prime conversion have often been cumbersome and time-consuming, requiring extensive manual calculation and analysis. However, ZERO SIR's ingenious approach streamlines the process, offering a swift and efficient solution that delivers accurate prime numbers in a fraction of the time. The significance of this achievement cannot be overstated. By simplifying the conversion process, ZERO SIR has not only enhanced the accessibility of prime numbers but has also laid the foundation for further advancements in fields ranging from cryptography to computer science. With this innovation, researchers, educators, and enthusiasts alike can explore the intricate beauty of prime numbers with newfound ease and precision. ZERO SIR's dedication to pushing the boundaries of mathematical inquiry exemplifies the spirit of innovation that drives progress in our world. This remarkable breakthrough originating from Janakpur-4, Shanti Nagar, Nepal, serves as a beacon of inspiration to aspiring mathematicians and inventors everywhere, reminding us of the limitless potential of human creativity and ingenuity. Join us in celebrating ZERO SIR's extraordinary achievement and the boundless possibilities it presents for the future of mathematics. Together, let us embark on a journey of discovery and exploration, guided by the transformative power of knowledge and imagination. 2400:1A00:BDA0:25CC:6D69:36E4:F3AF:3A98 ( talk) 15:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
WP:NOTFORUM. The Math Ref Desk is thataway. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Here is the set of all potential primes greater than 7 (30k + r), r = {1,7,11,13,17,19,23,29}, k is any integer 0 to infinity. the only ones that are not prime are divisible by (30x + r). (30(0) + 1)(30k + r) = 30k + r, so the first prime with r = 1 will be at k = 1. This also means it is not worth checking (30(0) + 1) as a factor of a composite. If you take all r, (r1 x r2) mod 30 it will give you the valid pairs of composites. Example (11 x 11) mod 30 = 1. So if you take a number n/30 remainder 1 it has potential divisors of (30x + 11)(30y + 11). (11,11) is a valid pair for remainder 1. 1 and 19 have 6 valid pairs all other r have 4. This is because we have 8 numbers and a • b = b • a. 1 and 19 have 2 more pairs because or the squares of r’s exist there. So if you take any number n/30 if it does not have a remainder in the set r it is not prime. If it does have a remainder in set r it is prime if it cannot be divided by a number from one of the found valid pairs. 4087 = (30(1) + 7)(30(1) + 1) LandonL ( talk) 12:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
This is not the place to write original research. Unless you can find a reliably published reference for this material it is off-topic here. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
|