OF THE
TIMES
The specific symbol set used to denote Numbers has no effect on the relationship between any two given Numbers.I think I basically disagree with that - I don't consider the methodology of using "Base10" to be "symbolic".
This is what is on my mind…..* ???
*Well, here is the proof why any whole number ending in digit #9 is less likely to be prime versus whole numbers ending in digit #3 or digit #7 in base10. Assuming you have read the article, R U Ready?
1. 3*7=7*3=21. 3*9=9*3=27. 7*9=9*7=63. So, giving these each a “count of 1” versus counting them both ways, gives one ending in #1, one ending in #7, and one ending in #3, respectively.
2. The other possibilities are 3 * 3 = 9, 7*7 = 49, and 9*9=81. This gives 2 ending in #9 and one ending in #1.
3. Therefore, per the approach of not “double-counting” forwards and backwards, the totals are two ending in #1 and two ending in #9 versus just one ending in #7 and #3, respectively.
4. Therefore, whole numbers ending in #9 are less likely to be prime versus those ending in either #7 or #3, respectively.
BK* If somebody wants to prove that incorrect, please do.Tis easier to read here:
Starting from 1 consider the probability of the next whole number being prime. At first the values are known starting with 100%, but later on (way later on) there is uncertainty, but the probability gradually diminishes until it approaches (but never reaches) 0% chance. That is why the bigger numbers matter less, just like quantum physics (can you say "small") is mostly imaginary math of the little and it is not doing us any good at this point - plus, calculus is flawed at the edges.
By the way, have you checked out the link on the very bottom of this site - it still works. It is 1 (Jan) 9 (9th day) 20 (20th year) - you almost certainly must know if you are reading this......we live in a crazy world with a few demented minds who are on their way either off to the side, or if need be....off the cliff. But that is not why I decided to post this. I've been thinking about this a bit more and I'm actually not sure whether the probability actually approaches 0%. In fact, it might approach another fixed percent value....it would be low, but not low like ZERO. So anyhow, I kept thinking about it and I know a way to figure it out. I'll say the way because I like to share. Run the numbers as far up as you can with current computing power and see if there is a trend. Does the probability consistently diminish or does it actually reach some sort of fixed percent. If it reaches a fixed percent, I have a hunch that the "final number" ( if there ever was one ) will have something to do with the reciprocal of the square root of 10! Just study those last six words with the number 10 at the end if you give no credence to my ramblings, because others have talked about this in depth and I leave it to you to find the link.BK
Leading intelligent design theorists Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Stephen Meyer, for example, have asserted that the specified complexity of living systems cannot be reduced to natural law.If living systems could be reduced to "natural law", that would imply those living systems could be reproduced by "natural law". In other words, recreated and modified by man's science at his will.
A doe's dream is about Odesa - or Odessa if your prefer - Sad odes due for the sake of a does's dream I reckon - and I looked in the eyes - they were solemn. The eyes of the dead doe placed in my yard disemboweled. (Not kidding around....)And - I want the fair value of what I own - fair and square. I played by the "rules", but they don't - there must be consequences - hard lessons on the way.Incidentally - given the timing of it - my only choice in the moment was to bag that doe up and call for pickup on the side of the road - but I remember and it firmed my resolve in the moment - Hard lessons are on the way.ps - what I own was from Van-Eck - twas RSX - they stole it - and as a pirate with a bow that don't sit well cause I know tis now way more valuable that what it was when I purchased it and then twas stolen. The EU is toast and any pirate knows - if a pirate steals from you, then they are a pirate bereft of honor - and they will get their due - one at a time and both ways.
This is not natural law, it the ideological mindset of nihilistic thought beings to manipulate and control, everything that walks, talks, breathes and lives on this world we inhabit.I concur. Consider me in agreement.
... gravity is "unexplainable" bs. There must be another force involved - ...Which reminds me ...
scale - A function of "impact". Impact can be a combination of many factors including: numbers affected as well as duration and magnitude of associated effects. Defining effects when assessing impact as well as the overall "size" of scale (large or small) requires awareness of the "commonweal" (general welfare for all members of the commons).Here is the link to that definition from 2007 - [Link]
This is why I think "black holes" are pseudo science and math lost in 20th century ideas wrong.I suppose I said that before, but I can see a deliberate effort to mislead and confuse in this pseudo-scientific hypotheses.
"We" didn't even understand how the human "gut" functions , yet we think we know about black holes?
OK, you losers - here is the proof. I'll keep it simple.
Lets start with the digits that end all the prime numbers except the first time #2 and #5 show up. Two and five - you are dismissed cause you are one time prime numbers ending in said digit.
Four (#4) being an even number will never be a digit associated with a prime number if it is the last digit. Same goes for 8 as well as 0 when they are the final digit in any whole number. So for the sake of simplicity that leaves: 1, 3, 7, 9 as being the digits at the end of any number whole that is prime after the original #2 and #5 have had a day in the sun fine original prime.
Zero (0), two (2), four (4), six (2 * 3 = 6), and eight (8) are out of the picture when it comes to final digits ending a multi-digit number and whether they could be "prime" or not (a prime number is divisible by no other number other than #1 I reckon...but that is by default).
OK, and now the proof in detail:
1. The number "1" multiplied by any other number is the other number and so it is a wash and merits no further consideration in this proof.
2. That leaves numbers 3, 7, and 9. Those are the numbers of focus in this proof.
3. The proof is formed by multiplying the prime ending digits by themselves easy on early excluding #1 per the reason above.
4. 3*3= 9; 3*7 = 21; 3*9 = 27. That give endings of number 9, 1, and 7 - one of each.
5. 7*3=21, 7*7=49, 7*9=63. That gives ending of number 1, 9, and 3 - one of each.
6. 9*3=27, 9*7=63, 9*9=81. That gives ending of number 7, 3, and 1 - one of each.
7. Add up the ending numbers in the simple multiplication of the final digits and the total is as follows: Three (3) that end in 1, two (2) that end in either 3, 7, or 9.
8. So seems evident the probability of a number that ends in #1 being the last digit of a "prime number" is less likely versus the others being it can emerge in more ways simple.
9. That leaves only 3, 7, and 9 leftover - so it could be that all I've proven is that a number with many digits in base10 math (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 - ten digits in all like the fingers and thumbs on our hands) that ends in the #1 is less likely to be prime versus a number that ends with either a three, a seven, or a nine.
10. That is proof of that - I consider it rock solid.
OK, folks, since there are no puppets left here anymore - here is the lesson of the day (12820) - that is 1 (Jan) 28 (28th day) 20 (20th year) - study this number - it holds many mysteries and I can prove it if I have to, but I don't want to because I ain't no lawyer and frankly I have nothing left to prove to myself. I'm free. 510510. Here is a link to make this super easy: [Link] (I like to think I know my shit, but I know this as well - I have a lot to learn). What do you think would happen if we kept on adding each prime number to the formula - seems to me like it would lead to an explosion of creativity and that could be GOOD for all of us assuming we have liberty. OK, I'm not happy to type this, but it is 22720 and for the last few days the aforementioned site is no longer working for me, so I suppose I will have to tell. Here we go: the divisors of the number 510510 are something like this: 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17......not sure how much more it goes, but you get the drift - correct? Multiply a bunch of primes by themselves and you get to some seriously enlightened numbers that connect to so many other things that there must be some power in that. You ain't a puppet, so I won't ask if you think, but can you expand upon this idea in a new way? I hope so, but if not, I hope you enjoyed your reading time at this site. I'm not asking for donations, because I have a few good friends and that is all we really need - you know....the type of friend you can touch with you own two hands.I think I have proven that prime numbers when once goes out enough "decimal places" in Base10 math are more likely to end for any given digit regardless of the number of digits in a 3 or a 7 versus a 1 or a 9.
Buffalo_Ken If I understood your text, the statement you are trying to prove is that a number ending in "9" is less likely to be Prime than a number ending in "3" or "7" or "1".I think this could be an "early proof" of what I have already proven because 245 is the lowest number, 246 in 2nd place in this regard....and the other numbers are not statistically significant, but they affirm in a way what I already thought - but it could be - tis temporary.
Just for fun, I grabbed a list of the first 1,000 Prime Numbers, and counted the right-most digits.
"1" - 245
"3" - 253
"7" - 254
"9" - 246
So, of the first 7,919 Numbers, it's basically a two-coin flip for all four right-most digits.
There may be some dramatic changes over a larger range. Is there?
boli Damn, son.Pathetic - and I don't pretend to be anything - do you?
"245+253 gives 498 and 254+246 gives 500 - so that gives what: 998"
Quit pretending to be stupid. Two of the first 1,000 primes are "2" and "5". They aren't listed, because you're concentrated on 1,3,7,9 only.
In the background Mr. McCanney continued working on the illusive mathematical problems facing celestial mechanics, that is, the unknown method of solving simultaneous differential equations. He believed that nature had provided a simple but elegant method to solve these complex problems that did not exist in current mathematical capabilities. He envisioned a mathematical technique that would be applied and reapplied to generate a final solution. In this respect, many unsolved problems of mathematics and quantum mechanics and even genetic molecular structures would have their solutions in this new mathematical technique.I think this is of value - thanks again.
His search lead to a technique that is the basis for the discovery of the solution to the prime number problem presented in this book, and which now holds promise at solving some of the great mysteries of Quantum Physics as well as Genetics. It is based on the “Mathematical Operators” that the Professor calls “Generator Functions”.
Buffalo_Ken i cant debate you on this subject, but i do remember a rather controversial figure James McCanney authoring a book about prime numbers, is it true, as stated above, i don't have the mathematical knowledge to debate.I just purchased a paperback copy of that book for 14.99 in fiat $ currency ( after taxes due paid ). It ought arrive in early May.
[Link] this interview Time Out: James McCanney Prime Numbers (2023-01-10)
He also has a book published on Amazon
[Link]
He also has a website, which is a nightmare to navigate and god knows what critters he has living there. Not looked at the website in years. I received a message, beware...
Taking a diagonal slice through Pascal's Triangle gives us 1 1 2 3 5 8 13!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!
Reality is chaotic but follows rules