pls.
need an explanation of the function they call zeta, in words, not symbols, pls.
pls.
QUOTE (arealperson+Jan 1 2008, 04:55 PM)
explanation of the function they call zeta, in words, not symbols
GET IN LINE!
GET IN LINE!
I believe John Derbyshire does an adequate job explaining the Riemann Zeta function in his book Prime Obsession (I do not approve of or condone the purchase of this book, though I personally have bought and read this book).
-edit-
Note: It is not my intent to sell or promote/prevent the sale of this book.
-edit-
Note: It is not my intent to sell or promote/prevent the sale of this book.
QUOTE (Guest00+Jan 1 2008, 09:56 PM)
John Derbyshire does an adequate job explaining the Riemann Zeta function in his book Prime Obsession
Since there is a paperback, I will try to get it tomorrow at B&N then! Ok, so it's not BASIC code, but I'll see what it is before I burn it. Then, later, I will need your name so I can give you credit for helping me when I crush Reimann's hypothesis... if you want it, that is! Would you prefer credit or a bag of potato chips?
(I have read about the zeta function but have never seen any understandable explanation for what it is supposed to be either. I suspect it has become mathemystics...)
Thanks, Guest00.
Ivan
Since there is a paperback, I will try to get it tomorrow at B&N then! Ok, so it's not BASIC code, but I'll see what it is before I burn it. Then, later, I will need your name so I can give you credit for helping me when I crush Reimann's hypothesis... if you want it, that is! Would you prefer credit or a bag of potato chips?
(I have read about the zeta function but have never seen any understandable explanation for what it is supposed to be either. I suspect it has become mathemystics...)
Thanks, Guest00.
Ivan
Sometimes, I get a true glimpse of the beauties around us! Mostly I beat my forehead on something harder, but today AlphaNumeric's response in the thread on factorials, and now this. I am harming my po' old brain now with Ramanujan's Sum, via Wikipedia.
If I survive, again...
If I survive, again...
thanks (i think) for replies..
the reason i ask was because i have been playing with numbers for a few years
and have come across a way of showing that there is a very definite pattern of odds and evens within prime numbers.
is this something math-people know about?
the reason i ask was because i have been playing with numbers for a few years
and have come across a way of showing that there is a very definite pattern of odds and evens within prime numbers. is this something math-people know about?
QUOTE (arealperson+Jan 2 2008, 09:56 PM)
and have come across a way of showing that there is a very definite pattern of odds and evens within prime numbers.
No, you haven't.
Anyone who has to ask for a 'wordy' description of the Zeta function doesn't know enough maths to attack such a problem.
No, you haven't.
Anyone who has to ask for a 'wordy' description of the Zeta function doesn't know enough maths to attack such a problem.
alphanumeric, i beg to differ on both counts
Arealperson, why don't you post your work? If it indeed is profound, only fools will laugh. I wanted to say that no one is going to steal your work, but I realized halfway through that thought that some might; however, most of the people that plagiarize are idiots anyway and thus (in theory) wouldn't know what to do with said work. I hope I haven't dissuaded you from posting your findings.
As for a wordy explanation of the Riemann zeta function, I simply do not think it's possible for me to provide a clear, sufficient, and accurate detail of said function without going into the maths associated with it. Again, I recommend you to read the book I mentioned in my post above. Your local library should have it. Once again, it is not my intent to sell or promote/prevent the sale of anything (i.e. book).
As for a wordy explanation of the Riemann zeta function, I simply do not think it's possible for me to provide a clear, sufficient, and accurate detail of said function without going into the maths associated with it. Again, I recommend you to read the book I mentioned in my post above. Your local library should have it. Once again, it is not my intent to sell or promote/prevent the sale of anything (i.e. book).
QUOTE (Guest00+Jan 3 2008, 06:34 PM)
As for a wordy explanation of the Riemann zeta function, I simply do not think it's possible for me to provide a clear, sufficient, and accurate detail of said function without going into the maths associated with it.
Not the math!!!!
The algorithm! In plain-vanilla BASIC.
Not the math!!!!
The algorithm! In plain-vanilla BASIC.
ok, i am no mathmatician or scientist.
as far as i'm concerned, u guys have got us into this global mess we're in, so why would i give u more rope to hang us with???
howevever, i would not rule out a genuine and sympathetic offer of practical assistance from a like-minded individual (who can do math), in order to determine whether or not this "work" is indeed anything "profound" - which, by the way, i have not claimed it to be.
as far as i'm concerned, u guys have got us into this global mess we're in, so why would i give u more rope to hang us with???
howevever, i would not rule out a genuine and sympathetic offer of practical assistance from a like-minded individual (who can do math), in order to determine whether or not this "work" is indeed anything "profound" - which, by the way, i have not claimed it to be.
QUOTE (arealperson+Jan 2 2008, 03:56 PM)
i have been playing with numbers for a few years and have come across a way of showing that there is a very definite pattern of odds and evens within prime numbers.
Ummm...... Ok. I'm not a mathematician. I don't have any degrees in math. I sucked at math in high school, and the most advanced math I've ever studied was from The Complete Idiot's Guide to Algebra. (unless you count my rote memorization of certain phrases in the Orbifolds and Holonomy thread...)
That being said, I know for a fact that there is no such thing as an even prime number. Not one.
Because: If it's an even number, it's divisible by more than 1 and itself.
Hence: it's not prime.
Do I have to add a "Ya friggan mo'?" or is my point made?
and have come across a way of showing that there is a very definite pattern of odds and evens within prime numbers. Ummm...... Ok. I'm not a mathematician. I don't have any degrees in math. I sucked at math in high school, and the most advanced math I've ever studied was from The Complete Idiot's Guide to Algebra. (unless you count my rote memorization of certain phrases in the Orbifolds and Holonomy thread...)
That being said, I know for a fact that there is no such thing as an even prime number. Not one.
Because: If it's an even number, it's divisible by more than 1 and itself.
Hence: it's not prime.
Do I have to add a "Ya friggan mo'?" or is my point made?
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Jan 4 2008, 08:48 AM)
That being said, I know for a fact that there is no such thing as an even prime number. Not one.
Maybe that's the pattern he's discovered
Maybe that's the pattern he's discovered
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Jan 4 2008, 01:48 AM)
That being said, I know for a fact that there is no such thing as an even prime number. Not one.
Except for 2.
Except for 2.
Except for 2.
QUOTE (arealperson+)
the reason i ask was because i have been playing with numbers for a few years and have come across a way of showing that there is a very definite pattern of odds and evens within prime numbers.
Magnificent.
Magnificent.
well thanks for taking an interest
i know there are no even primes = what i'm talking about is a function (which results in evens/odds when applied to primes)
it also appears to do other interesting stuff, but like i say, i could do with a lilttle help to see just what it is (or is not)
got no hidden agenda, other than to save ourselves from our own intelligence
i know there are no even primes = what i'm talking about is a function (which results in evens/odds when applied to primes)
it also appears to do other interesting stuff, but like i say, i could do with a lilttle help to see just what it is (or is not)
got no hidden agenda, other than to save ourselves from our own intelligence
QUOTE (Alpha+Jan 3 2008, 05:38 PM)
Except for 2.
QUOTE (arealperson+)
the reason i ask was because i have been playing with numbers for a few years and have come across a way of showing that there is a very definite pattern of odds and evens within prime numbers.
Magnificent.
I thought 2 was too obvious to be worth mentioning, but looking at your post: I look like a friggan mo'. My bad. I gotta remember that even the obvious sometimes goes unnoticed around here, and phrase my posts accordingly.
Magnificent.
I thought 2 was too obvious to be worth mentioning, but looking at your post: I look like a friggan mo'. My bad. I gotta remember that even the obvious sometimes goes unnoticed around here, and phrase my posts accordingly.
my function also allows any prime number to be manipulated so that the result is always odd if the prime number starts with an even number, and vice versa.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Jan 4 2008, 05:13 PM)
I thought 2 was too obvious to be worth mentioning, but looking at your post: I look like a friggan mo'. My bad. I gotta remember that even the obvious sometimes goes unnoticed around here, and phrase my posts accordingly.
Of course 2 is an important number, it's the first prime number
.
Of course 2 is an important number, it's the first prime number
.
QUOTE (Guest00+Jan 4 2008, 08:33 PM)
Of course 2 is an important number, it's the first prime number .
Quit pickin on me! I know I came off like a mo'.
I honestly thought untill I read Alpha's post that I said "Just one." instead of "Not one."
Can't a guy have the text equivilent of dyslexia once in a while?
Yeesh, all you Forum Mafia types are jerks!
I'm going home to play with my crystals and align my chakras.
I'll pray for you.
.Quit pickin on me! I know I came off like a mo'.
I honestly thought untill I read Alpha's post that I said "Just one." instead of "Not one."
Can't a guy have the text equivilent of dyslexia once in a while?
Yeesh, all you Forum Mafia types are jerks!
I'm going home to play with my crystals and align my chakras.
I'll pray for you.
BigDumbWeirdo . I don't know if I'd meet the "standards" of the "forum mafia." Although I must say I'd definitely model myself after the Purple Gang if I could. Of course, I say this all in jest.
On topic,
my function also allows any prime number to be manipulated so that the result is always odd if the prime number starts with an even number, and vice versa.
Again, could you please show us some proof of your work? Even if you don't believe it to be profound, I'm sure most of us would like to see your work anyway.
. I don't know if I'd meet the "standards" of the "forum mafia." Although I must say I'd definitely model myself after the Purple Gang if I could. Of course, I say this all in jest.On topic,
QUOTE
my function also allows any prime number to be manipulated so that the result is always odd if the prime number starts with an even number, and vice versa.
Again, could you please show us some proof of your work? Even if you don't believe it to be profound, I'm sure most of us would like to see your work anyway.
QUOTE (arealperson+Jan 3 2008, 06:44 PM)
alphanumeric, i beg to differ on both counts
Then prove me wrong.
I bet you don't grasp the first thing about the mathematics of the Zeta function. If I can be bothered (and if I have them with me), I'll scan in a couple of pages from my 3rd year course on Complex Methods, which has a sizable function on integral representations of the Zeta function in the complex plane. Given it's a 3rd year course it doesn't bother pandering to people who don't know maths (well, even 1st year courses don't do that!). I bet don't follow it.
Then prove me wrong.
I bet you don't grasp the first thing about the mathematics of the Zeta function. If I can be bothered (and if I have them with me), I'll scan in a couple of pages from my 3rd year course on Complex Methods, which has a sizable function on integral representations of the Zeta function in the complex plane. Given it's a 3rd year course it doesn't bother pandering to people who don't know maths (well, even 1st year courses don't do that!). I bet don't follow it.
i have a friend here who has a few ideas what u can do with your paper on the zeta function. : if u care to read my posts, i admit i am no mathematician, which is why i am seeking an explanation in plain vanilla basic as u say.
i also explain why i would not want to post my stuff for god knows who to steal, rip apart, blow up the world a bit easier with
what i do need to know is have i got something new, & i think u have answered that in very clear plain english, so thanks
: if u care to read my posts, i admit i am no mathematician, which is why i am seeking an explanation in plain vanilla basic as u say.i also explain why i would not want to post my stuff for god knows who to steal, rip apart, blow up the world a bit easier with
what i do need to know is have i got something new, & i think u have answered that in very clear plain english, so thanks
QUOTE (arealperson+Jan 7 2008, 02:15 PM)
i also explain why i would not want to post my stuff for god knows who to steal, rip apart, blow up the world a bit easier with
Not going to happen. If you're no mathematician, and you've already been told that there's nothing new in your work, then there's no reason to avoiding showing it to us.
1: It already exists.
2: It probably won't be worth stealing.
3: I suspect there are far fewer evil mad scientists in the world than you think, and I doubt highly that any of them browse this forum for ideas.
Even if it's a world shattering bit of mathematics, the very presence of your post on this board would attribute the original work to you. At the very least, you could register the copyright on a paper about it, and thereby prove that you were the first to come up with it. Also, keep in mind that if you truly want credit for it, you'll need at least one person with at least a master's degree in mathematics to co-author a paper with you, in order for it to be published in a peer-reviewed mathematical journal.
I suspect you have nothing but an idea to which you've assigned undue importance, but all of us are willing to hear you out, for now. Keep avoiding the issue and you won't make many friends here (except for the counter-mafia, of course.)
Not going to happen. If you're no mathematician, and you've already been told that there's nothing new in your work, then there's no reason to avoiding showing it to us.
1: It already exists.
2: It probably won't be worth stealing.
3: I suspect there are far fewer evil mad scientists in the world than you think, and I doubt highly that any of them browse this forum for ideas.
Even if it's a world shattering bit of mathematics, the very presence of your post on this board would attribute the original work to you. At the very least, you could register the copyright on a paper about it, and thereby prove that you were the first to come up with it. Also, keep in mind that if you truly want credit for it, you'll need at least one person with at least a master's degree in mathematics to co-author a paper with you, in order for it to be published in a peer-reviewed mathematical journal.
I suspect you have nothing but an idea to which you've assigned undue importance, but all of us are willing to hear you out, for now. Keep avoiding the issue and you won't make many friends here (except for the counter-mafia, of course.)
i just want an explanation in plain english how the zeta function works!!!!!!!!!
I have read quantum mechanic book and such mystery I have never seen. AH-HA=idA/dt or somthing like this. Comutation and another wondersness is so dificult that can be wrong. Full impulse know, but in paths unkow or somthing like that. Heisenberg and shrodinger pictures looks diferent but is equal. No wonder that nobody understand quantum mechanic and quantum computers. I would say that those quantum mechanical knowleges are speculative, becouse so dificult and hard to understand.
Entanglement is Bell theorem, which saying that if there is hiden varables then it must have infinity information how to behave in each experiment. But my opinion is that entanglement can be made only in some one short experiments and can't be made in all experiments for freely manipulation like somebody want. Entangled photons can be only if blue photon in crystal spliting into two red photons - then those two red photons will be entangled. Entangled electron only can be in pauli violation principle that two fermions can't be in same state and thus can't have the same numbers and can't be freely manipulated.
Entanglement is Bell theorem, which saying that if there is hiden varables then it must have infinity information how to behave in each experiment. But my opinion is that entanglement can be made only in some one short experiments and can't be made in all experiments for freely manipulation like somebody want. Entangled photons can be only if blue photon in crystal spliting into two red photons - then those two red photons will be entangled. Entangled electron only can be in pauli violation principle that two fermions can't be in same state and thus can't have the same numbers and can't be freely manipulated.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jan 8 2008, 02:16 PM)
I have read quantum mechanic book and such mystery I have never seen.
That's because you're an idiot. Have you studied mathematics much? It's essential to grasping quantum mechanics or any physics really.
That's because you're an idiot. Have you studied mathematics much? It's essential to grasping quantum mechanics or any physics really.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jan 8 2008, 02:16 PM)
AH-HA=idA/dt or somthing like this. Comutation and another wondersness is so dificult that can be wrong.
Have you studied group theory? Non-commuting groups are common place. Infact, most groups aren't commuting. Just look at the Pauli matrices (not that you understand them).
It's not that difficult for some of us. You're just not clever enough.
Have you studied group theory? Non-commuting groups are common place. Infact, most groups aren't commuting. Just look at the Pauli matrices (not that you understand them).
It's not that difficult for some of us. You're just not clever enough.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jan 8 2008, 02:16 PM)
Heisenberg and shrodinger pictures looks diferent but is equal.
Because the inner product, which is how observables are defined, is invariant under a change of picture.
Lecture notes on non-relativistic quantum mechanics
It's all explained there in Chapter 3.
Lecture notes on non-relativistic quantum mechanics
It's all explained there in Chapter 3.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jan 8 2008, 02:16 PM)
No wonder that nobody understand quantum mechanic and quantum computers.
People do understand how to make them work. The computer you're sat infront of works because people can do quantum mechanics. You're denying what is literally infront of your face.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jan 8 2008, 02:16 PM)
I would say that those quantum mechanical knowleges are speculative, becouse so dificult and hard to understand.
Staggering arrogance. You find it hard, therefore by induction everyone else must find it hard too? 
It's hardly speculative, it's got almost 100 years of experimental evidence backing up essential notions like quantisation of energy, spin, charge etc. Quantum electrodynamics is the most experimentally verified theory in human history. Things like the anomylous magnetic moment of the electron are predicted and measured to the 9th significant figure! That's parts per billion!
Hard for you to understand. Try reading "Quantum Mechanics and Experience" by David Z Albert for a self contained course in Quantum Notation and the math behind it.
Hard for you to understand. Try reading "Quantum Mechanics and Experience" by David Z Albert for a self contained course in Quantum Notation and the math behind it.
Quantum computer nobody can build becouse it's like eternal enegine
You seem to be confused. You are always spouting off about how quantum computers cannot be built what they already have. The fact that they are not big, not efficient, not complex (comutationally) is of no concern to anyone but you. The fact remains that they exist and work.
It seems you understand very little, but talk about it all anyway. Too bad.
You think you can. But, do you REALLY understand? Of course not.
You saying in oposit direction to true. They don't exist and they don't work. Nobody can prove that they exist, reaped, NOBODY. They don't working such well as wants sciecists from theory and if this sentece you will transform to the true, then you will understand that they don't workint at all. This is somthing diferent than quantum computer.
http://books.google.com/books?id=HYEZD0Mh8...jhSNrt6TZ5NFkvY
It's hard to understand with colours and hardnes for kid.
Here my experiment. Electrons with random spin (it's always random), emited and on top there is magnetic field. Then 50% electrons will fly to top and 50% - to botom. Now after emited electron flying direction imidiatly turns on magnetic field on left after then electron was go to top or botom. And so now electron is in 4 states superposition? But if electron is only probabilistic then possible 4 outcomes top-left, top-right, botom-left and botom-right.
It's hardly speculative, it's got almost 100 years of experimental evidence backing up essential notions like quantisation of energy, spin, charge etc. Quantum electrodynamics is the most experimentally verified theory in human history. Things like the anomylous magnetic moment of the electron are predicted and measured to the 9th significant figure! That's parts per billion! QUOTE (DavidD+Jan 8 2008, 02:16 PM)
Entangled electron only can be in pauli violation principle that two fermions can't be in same state and thus can't have the same numbers and can't be freely manipulated.
Entangled doesn't mean they are in the same state, it means they are in a particular, known, total state so affecting one alters the other. If the total spin of a pair of electrons is known to be m=0, then if one is m=1, the other is m=-1.
Obviously you didn't read that book very well.
Obviously you didn't read that book very well.
Entangtlement and superposition I can understand without formulas, why I can't understand pauli matrices or qubit(s) phase, spin properties/phase without formulas?
Why \alpha|\psi>+\beta|\phy> equation is valid if normaly phy means all function and if alpha and beta is complex numbers then must be (\alpha)^2+(\beta)^2=1, but how you suspect to made this with complex numbers? I sugest that a(lpha) and and b(eta) can't be complex numbers, but real only or maybe even |real|.
This function psi(x, t) is function x(t). But what means in this equation H\psi(x, t)=ih\delta\psy(x, t)/dt, letter i? just for fun? So partial derivative of t. t changing and x not?
Partial derivative of x is p=-ihd/dx. Of what in this equation H=p^2/(2m)+V(x)? Why H\psi(x, t) is partial derivative of t and not of x? Or p^2=(-ihd/dx)^2=ihd/dt ?
Quantum computer nobody can build becouse it's like eternal enegine. To made entangled superposition of all states with phase diference (if such exist) need virtualy made all framework like in eternal engine and so never coherent superposition of even 2^2 states will be made becouse it's the same like if eternal engine will work 1 hour without energy.
I like shrodinger equation more, becouse it's shorter: H|\psi(t)>=ihd|\psi(t)>/dt. But still this quantum mechanic doing new math.
What means such equation: |psi(t)>=e^(-i*E_n*t/h}|psi_n>? It's looks like phase.
I can't understand how spin pauli matrix Z can change phase. Is spin is just probabilistic then it always probabiliticly fly into one or another direction. And if to turn on two magnetic fields from up and left say then it will feel this magnetic fields like one sumed up magnetic field and will obey probabiliticly.
I just can't understand how spin can be used for quantum computation.
And how spins in NMR can align if they are probabilitics? maybe they alogning only in NMR quantum computer and in NMR in over aplication they just doing everything probabiliticly?
My last understanding about spin is that it's like ball with marked point on it and turning on magnetic fields you can rotate this ball that rotates point on it and then point becoming in real or oposit side, becouse spin is probabilistic.
BTW, Y pauli matrix is just for fun to comute with over matrices and so, and don't exist in reality or maybe exist only like combination XY or YX.
Therefore the world really does seem to obey quantum mechanical rules which are
fundamentally probabilitistic in nature.
Maybe understanding about spin is wrong and it can't be even theory used for phase encoding and good only for probabilistic computer like quantum random number generator?
Why \alpha|\psi>+\beta|\phy> equation is valid if normaly phy means all function and if alpha and beta is complex numbers then must be (\alpha)^2+(\beta)^2=1, but how you suspect to made this with complex numbers? I sugest that a(lpha) and and b(eta) can't be complex numbers, but real only or maybe even |real|.
This function psi(x, t) is function x(t). But what means in this equation H\psi(x, t)=ih\delta\psy(x, t)/dt, letter i? just for fun? So partial derivative of t. t changing and x not?
Partial derivative of x is p=-ihd/dx. Of what in this equation H=p^2/(2m)+V(x)? Why H\psi(x, t) is partial derivative of t and not of x? Or p^2=(-ihd/dx)^2=ihd/dt ?
Quantum computer nobody can build becouse it's like eternal enegine. To made entangled superposition of all states with phase diference (if such exist) need virtualy made all framework like in eternal engine and so never coherent superposition of even 2^2 states will be made becouse it's the same like if eternal engine will work 1 hour without energy.
I like shrodinger equation more, becouse it's shorter: H|\psi(t)>=ihd|\psi(t)>/dt. But still this quantum mechanic doing new math.
What means such equation: |psi(t)>=e^(-i*E_n*t/h}|psi_n>? It's looks like phase.
I can't understand how spin pauli matrix Z can change phase. Is spin is just probabilistic then it always probabiliticly fly into one or another direction. And if to turn on two magnetic fields from up and left say then it will feel this magnetic fields like one sumed up magnetic field and will obey probabiliticly.
I just can't understand how spin can be used for quantum computation.
And how spins in NMR can align if they are probabilitics? maybe they alogning only in NMR quantum computer and in NMR in over aplication they just doing everything probabiliticly?
My last understanding about spin is that it's like ball with marked point on it and turning on magnetic fields you can rotate this ball that rotates point on it and then point becoming in real or oposit side, becouse spin is probabilistic.
BTW, Y pauli matrix is just for fun to comute with over matrices and so, and don't exist in reality or maybe exist only like combination XY or YX.
Therefore the world really does seem to obey quantum mechanical rules which are
fundamentally probabilitistic in nature.
Maybe understanding about spin is wrong and it can't be even theory used for phase encoding and good only for probabilistic computer like quantum random number generator?
QUOTE
I would say that those quantum mechanical knowleges are speculative, becouse so dificult and hard to understand
Hard for you to understand. Try reading "Quantum Mechanics and Experience" by David Z Albert for a self contained course in Quantum Notation and the math behind it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I would say that those quantum mechanical knowleges are speculative, becouse so dificult and hard to understand |
Hard for you to understand. Try reading "Quantum Mechanics and Experience" by David Z Albert for a self contained course in Quantum Notation and the math behind it.
Quantum computer nobody can build becouse it's like eternal enegine
You seem to be confused. You are always spouting off about how quantum computers cannot be built what they already have. The fact that they are not big, not efficient, not complex (comutationally) is of no concern to anyone but you. The fact remains that they exist and work.
It seems you understand very little, but talk about it all anyway. Too bad.
QUOTE
Entangtlement and superposition I can understand without formulas
You think you can. But, do you REALLY understand? Of course not.
QUOTE
You seem to be confused. You are always spouting off about how quantum computers cannot be built what they already have. The fact that they are not big, not efficient, not complex (comutationally) is of no concern to anyone but you. The fact remains that they exist and work.
You saying in oposit direction to true. They don't exist and they don't work. Nobody can prove that they exist, reaped, NOBODY. They don't working such well as wants sciecists from theory and if this sentece you will transform to the true, then you will understand that they don't workint at all. This is somthing diferent than quantum computer.
http://books.google.com/books?id=HYEZD0Mh8...jhSNrt6TZ5NFkvY
It's hard to understand with colours and hardnes for kid.
Here my experiment. Electrons with random spin (it's always random), emited and on top there is magnetic field. Then 50% electrons will fly to top and 50% - to botom. Now after emited electron flying direction imidiatly turns on magnetic field on left after then electron was go to top or botom. And so now electron is in 4 states superposition? But if electron is only probabilistic then possible 4 outcomes top-left, top-right, botom-left and botom-right.
QUOTE (arealperson+Jan 8 2008, 03:10 AM)
i just want an explanation in plain english how the zeta function works!!!!!!!!!
Yes me too. I wnat to know what is the big deal about it.
As far as I can see, it correlates two functions onto the complex plane, and makes some bizzarre statement about the zeros.
Yes me too. I wnat to know what is the big deal about it.
As far as I can see, it correlates two functions onto the complex plane, and makes some bizzarre statement about the zeros.
parentperson, u r jokin, right? it's hard for someone like me to tell. anyway, zeta funcion not so important to me anymore, since my friend and i cracked a formula for creating prime numbers last night
[FONT=Geneva][SIZE=1][COLOR=purple]
when wise man learns the Way, he tries to live by it
when average man learns the Way, he lives by only part of it
when fool finds the Way, he laughs at it
yet if the fool did not laugh at it, it would not be the Way
indeed, if you are seeking the Way, listen for the laughter of fools Lao Tsu
[FONT=Geneva][SIZE=1][COLOR=purple]
when wise man learns the Way, he tries to live by it
when average man learns the Way, he lives by only part of it
when fool finds the Way, he laughs at it
yet if the fool did not laugh at it, it would not be the Way
indeed, if you are seeking the Way, listen for the laughter of fools
Lao Tsu
QUOTE (arealperson+)
anyway, zeta funcion not so important to me anymore, since my friend and i cracked a formula for creating prime numbers last night
A million dollars says you haven't. If you have, claim to Cray Institute's million dollar prize for proving the Riemann Hypothesis.
Here's a few quick notes on the Zeta Function :
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/stcs/cours...etaequation.pdf
Click the pictures for a larger version.
Let's see you answer questions 7 and 8 here
I bet you can't.
Here's a few quick notes on the Zeta Function :
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/stcs/cours...etaequation.pdf
Click the pictures for a larger version.
Let's see you answer questions 7 and 8 here
I bet you can't.
can't even read questions 7 and 8 here.
i know my function works, simply and beautifully.
i know our equation works to find primes (using said function), because we spent all night doing just that.
i suspect the function may have implications beyond generating primes.
if there is a professor of mathematics who would wish to co-write a paper, then please let me know
but only if you concur with my views.
i distrust todays scientists. not so much because as someone suggsested i think they're evil (although some undoubtedly are) but because it is apparent the majority are just arrogant & ignorant about their own souls let alone the soul of the world, with a sad lack of care for the consequences of their actions.
as dear Uncle Albert is supposed to have said, science is far too important to be left to scientists.
i distrust the extreme competitiveness of the scientific culture, and believe it is not the way to bring important new ideas to fruition
in a world where (we are led to believe) scientists have access to incredible powers, the people of the world should have more of a say in what scientists do or do not do - science should serve humanity, not itself. i am talking here about particle accelerators and AI - CERN to be specific.
as my dear friend M says - to be silly is fine, but to be stupid - nah.
the difference between silly and stupid? consequences. everything we do has consequences. and if we don't know what they may be, then maybe we really shouldn't be doing it.
i know my function works, simply and beautifully.
i know our equation works to find primes (using said function), because we spent all night doing just that.
i suspect the function may have implications beyond generating primes.
if there is a professor of mathematics who would wish to co-write a paper, then please let me know
but only if you concur with my views.
i distrust todays scientists. not so much because as someone suggsested i think they're evil (although some undoubtedly are) but because it is apparent the majority are just arrogant & ignorant about their own souls let alone the soul of the world, with a sad lack of care for the consequences of their actions.
as dear Uncle Albert is supposed to have said, science is far too important to be left to scientists.
i distrust the extreme competitiveness of the scientific culture, and believe it is not the way to bring important new ideas to fruition
in a world where (we are led to believe) scientists have access to incredible powers, the people of the world should have more of a say in what scientists do or do not do - science should serve humanity, not itself. i am talking here about particle accelerators and AI - CERN to be specific.
as my dear friend M says - to be silly is fine, but to be stupid - nah.
the difference between silly and stupid? consequences. everything we do has consequences. and if we don't know what they may be, then maybe we really shouldn't be doing it.
QUOTE (arealperson+Jan 10 2008, 03:30 AM)
i know our equation works to find primes (using said function), because we spent all night doing just that.
That isn't a proof. "Proof by trying 20 cases" isn't a proof for all cases. For instance, the function f(n) = n^2 - n + 41 will generate primes 40 times for n=1 to n=40. It's obviously not prime for n=41 though.
That isn't a proof. "Proof by trying 20 cases" isn't a proof for all cases. For instance, the function f(n) = n^2 - n + 41 will generate primes 40 times for n=1 to n=40. It's obviously not prime for n=41 though.
QUOTE (arealperson+Jan 10 2008, 03:30 AM)
if there is a professor of mathematics who would wish to co-write a paper, then please let me know
but only if you concur with my views.
but only if you concur with my views.
Noone is going to believe you unless you produce some work. Go on, show part of your working in how you derived the formula.
QUOTE (arealperson+Jan 10 2008, 03:30 AM)
as dear Uncle Albert is supposed to have said, science is far too important to be left to scientists.
It was Hilbert.
QUOTE (arealperson+Jan 10 2008, 03:30 AM)
can't even read questions 7 and 8 here.
You mean you don't have Adobe Acrobat installed (it's a free download) or you just don't understand it?
QUOTE (DavidD+Jan 9 2008, 08:47 AM)
Why \alpha|\psi>+\beta|\phy> equation is valid if normaly phy means all function and if alpha and beta is complex numbers then must be (\alpha)^2+(\beta)^2=1, but how you suspect to made this with complex numbers? I sugest that a(lpha) and and b(eta) can't be complex numbers, but real only or maybe even |real|.
Because we work in a complex vector space. All physical operators are hermitian and thus has real eigenvalues. Also, when taking the norm of the state α|ψ>+β|φ> you compute the complex conjugate of that so you get <ψ|α*+<φ|β* and then the inner product comes out to be |β|˛+|α|˛. That's how complex vector spaces work.
And they are complex because the commutator of x and p is a complex number and the Schrodinger equation involves an i.
Because we work in a complex vector space. All physical operators are hermitian and thus has real eigenvalues. Also, when taking the norm of the state α|ψ>+β|φ> you compute the complex conjugate of that so you get <ψ|α*+<φ|β* and then the inner product comes out to be |β|˛+|α|˛. That's how complex vector spaces work.
And they are complex because the commutator of x and p is a complex number and the Schrodinger equation involves an i.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jan 9 2008, 08:47 AM)
This function psi(x, t) is function x(t). But what means in this equation H\psi(x, t)=ih\delta\psy(x, t)/dt, letter i? just for fun? So partial derivative of t. t changing and x not?
Partial derivative of x is p=-ihd/dx. Of what in this equation H=p^2/(2m)+V(x)? Why H\psi(x, t) is partial derivative of t and not of x? Or p^2=(-ihd/dx)^2=ihd/dt ?
Partial derivative of x is p=-ihd/dx. Of what in this equation H=p^2/(2m)+V(x)? Why H\psi(x, t) is partial derivative of t and not of x? Or p^2=(-ihd/dx)^2=ihd/dt ?
H involves space derivatives so both time and space derivatives are involved.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jan 9 2008, 08:47 AM)
I like shrodinger equation more, becouse it's shorter: H|\psi(t)>=ihd|\psi(t)>/dt. But still this quantum mechanic doing new math.
What means such equation: |psi(t)>=e^(-i*E_n*t/h}|psi_n>? It's looks like phase.
What means such equation: |psi(t)>=e^(-i*E_n*t/h}|psi_n>? It's looks like phase.
|ψ(t)> = sum over all n of e^(-i*E_n*t/h}|ψ_n> in general. Then the relative phases are essential. For an eigenstate, when |ψ(t)> = e^(-i*E_n*t/h}|ψ_n> for one particular value of n, the state doesn't evolve in time, it's stationary. But that's an expected result for eigenfunctions.
So if there is qubit then possible only for example |ψ>=0.707|0>-i0.707|1> state? But I sow 0.707|0>+(e^iφ)0.707|1>, where e^iφ=cosφ+isinφ. And so I can't understand how phase e^iφ realates with probabilities 2(0.707)^2=1 in general with say pauli matrices...
Do you mean somthing like this in phase basis a|0>+b|1>=0.707((a+
|+>+(a-|->), where |+>=0.707(|0>+|1>) and |->=0.707(|0>-|1>)? http://www-inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs191/s...es/lecture1.pdf
Do α|ψ>+β|φ>=α|+>+β|-> or so?
e^(-i*E_n*t/h}|ψ_n>, then each n can have each diferent phase.
If spin is ball with marked dot on it, and if up is |0> and down is |1>, then if you will rotate from up to down then you will flup spin like with pauli X matrix. But I can't get what is spin phase. Maybe dot rotation about z axis, but then must also rotates |1> and |0> and so state always will be 0.707|0>+0.707|1>. Maybe dot on right means 0.707|0>+0.707|1> and on left -(0.707|0>+0.707|1>). But I can't understand it's still 0 and 1 and how you then can to call it phase?
can't read q's 7 and 8 cos they not there, just same 1 & 2 repeated. but if they are written in symbols then forget it
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/stcs/cours...eets/sheet3.pdf
Questions 7 and 8 there. As for 'they are written in symbols', that's what maths is you *****. It's algebra. That's what actual mathematicians do when doing work with the Zeta function. If you can't grasp that then you've got no clue about the Zeta function.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jan 9 2008, 08:47 AM)
I can't understand how spin pauli matrix Z can change phase.
I suggest you learn some quantum mechanics than because you obviously haven't yet.
AN-the zeta function,is just pure mathematics or touch in some part of the physical;the QM could to help to solve the riemann'hypothesis?
QUOTE
Because we work in a complex vector space. All physical operators are hermitian and thus has real eigenvalues. Also, when taking the norm of the state α|ψ>+β|φ> you compute the complex conjugate of that so you get <ψ|α*+<φ|β* and then the inner product comes out to be |β|˛+|α|˛=(1?). That's how complex vector spaces work.
So if there is qubit then possible only for example |ψ>=0.707|0>-i0.707|1> state? But I sow 0.707|0>+(e^iφ)0.707|1>, where e^iφ=cosφ+isinφ. And so I can't understand how phase e^iφ realates with probabilities 2(0.707)^2=1 in general with say pauli matrices...
Do you mean somthing like this in phase basis a|0>+b|1>=0.707((a+
|+>+(a-|->), where |+>=0.707(|0>+|1>) and |->=0.707(|0>-|1>)? http://www-inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs191/s...es/lecture1.pdfDo α|ψ>+β|φ>=α|+>+β|-> or so?
e^(-i*E_n*t/h}|ψ_n>, then each n can have each diferent phase.
If spin is ball with marked dot on it, and if up is |0> and down is |1>, then if you will rotate from up to down then you will flup spin like with pauli X matrix. But I can't get what is spin phase. Maybe dot rotation about z axis, but then must also rotates |1> and |0> and so state always will be 0.707|0>+0.707|1>. Maybe dot on right means 0.707|0>+0.707|1> and on left -(0.707|0>+0.707|1>). But I can't understand it's still 0 and 1 and how you then can to call it phase?
Hilbert, Albert, close nuff...
can't read q's 7 and 8 cos they not there, just same 1 & 2 repeated. but if they are written in symbols then forget it
our formula for finding primes:
A the last known prime
B result after applying my very simple function to A
C the difference between A and B
C + F = new prime
F has to fulfil the following criteria:
must result in an odd number (not 5) when added to C;
result must obviously be larger than A if you are looking for next prime;
F must itself sum up to a prime (eg. 58, 5 + 8 =13);
if you are left with a choice of possible numbers, it is the smallest
that's it
note: B always ends in the opposite odd/even to the first digit of A, and C always ends in the same odd/even (as begining of A) which is what makes me wonder if the very simple function may have something to do with pos/neg charges or atomic spin.
C, by the way, turns out to be a constant (expressed a little differently for each group of 100, but always sums up to the same single number) which makes me think of fractal scales
have got some very interesting results when applied function to naturally occuring constants etc.
when applied to normal integers (as opposed to primes), at the point where they pass from one group of 100s to another, the results split and logically BOTH ARE EQUALLY TRUE at the same time, in fact you can choose whichever one you like it doesn't make any difference - or both - which makes me wonder if it may possibly have something to do with quantum states
again no am not giving the very simple function, for reasons stated in previous posts. it's probably faaaaaar too simple for you lot to get your heads around anyway
keep it real
can't read q's 7 and 8 cos they not there, just same 1 & 2 repeated. but if they are written in symbols then forget it
our formula for finding primes:
A the last known prime
B result after applying my very simple function to A
C the difference between A and B
C + F = new prime
F has to fulfil the following criteria:
must result in an odd number (not 5) when added to C;
result must obviously be larger than A if you are looking for next prime;
F must itself sum up to a prime (eg. 58, 5 + 8 =13);
if you are left with a choice of possible numbers, it is the smallest
that's it
note: B always ends in the opposite odd/even to the first digit of A, and C always ends in the same odd/even (as begining of A) which is what makes me wonder if the very simple function may have something to do with pos/neg charges or atomic spin.
C, by the way, turns out to be a constant (expressed a little differently for each group of 100, but always sums up to the same single number) which makes me think of fractal scales
have got some very interesting results when applied function to naturally occuring constants etc.
when applied to normal integers (as opposed to primes), at the point where they pass from one group of 100s to another, the results split and logically BOTH ARE EQUALLY TRUE at the same time, in fact you can choose whichever one you like it doesn't make any difference - or both - which makes me wonder if it may possibly have something to do with quantum states
again no am not giving the very simple function, for reasons stated in previous posts. it's probably faaaaaar too simple for you lot to get your heads around anyway
keep it real
QUOTE (arealperson+Jan 10 2008, 03:24 PM)
can't read q's 7 and 8 cos they not there, just same 1 & 2 repeated. but if they are written in symbols then forget it
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/stcs/cours...eets/sheet3.pdf
Questions 7 and 8 there. As for 'they are written in symbols', that's what maths is you *****. It's algebra. That's what actual mathematicians do when doing work with the Zeta function. If you can't grasp that then you've got no clue about the Zeta function.
QUOTE (arealperson+Jan 10 2008, 03:24 PM)
again no am not giving the very simple function, for reasons stated in previous posts. it's probably faaaaaar too simple for you lot to get your heads around anywayt
You just admitted to not grasping the algebra, so it's pretty rich you're complaining I wouldn't understand it.
I continue to maintain you're all talk and you're too scared to prove otherwise.
And DavidD, you continue to be clueless. Rather than trying to grasp lecture notes which assume knowledge you obviously don't have why don't you actually learn some group theory first? You still don't grasp the Pauli matrices.
I continue to maintain you're all talk and you're too scared to prove otherwise.
And DavidD, you continue to be clueless. Rather than trying to grasp lecture notes which assume knowledge you obviously don't have why don't you actually learn some group theory first? You still don't grasp the Pauli matrices.
QUOTE (arealperson+Jan 9 2008, 09:14 AM)
parentperson, u r jokin, right? it's hard for someone like me to tell. anyway, zeta funcion not so important to me anymore, since my friend and i cracked a formula for creating prime numbers last night
Um yup sort of. Everytime I read about the RH, I get confused. I guess I'm going to have to look at it again.
Factors kick out the zig zaggy subset of a floret (spiralling grids). The remainders kick out the patented ellipse poster or one of those black light posters from the 70's.
Um yup sort of. Everytime I read about the RH, I get confused. I guess I'm going to have to look at it again.
Factors kick out the zig zaggy subset of a floret (spiralling grids). The remainders kick out the patented ellipse poster or one of those black light posters from the 70's.
QUOTE (arealperson+Jan 9 2008, 07:30 PM)
i know our equation works to find primes
Does your formula find more than 500,000 primes per second?
If your algorithm proves to be the best known to humankind, I would say that is quite a feat deserving some recognition.
How can I prove the RH if I can't even understand the darn thing?
Does your formula find more than 500,000 primes per second?
If your algorithm proves to be the best known to humankind, I would say that is quite a feat deserving some recognition.
How can I prove the RH if I can't even understand the darn thing?
that would be something wouldnt it - no can't calculate primes that fast since they're done with pen and paper>>>>
shuld i care about the riemann hyp (othesis)?
shuld i care about the riemann hyp (othesis)?
Sure would be something allright.
Should you care about the RH? It depends. A proof would get you a million bucks, which certainly doesn't as far as it used to, unfortunately. A proof would actually be worth hundreds of billions of ounces of very fine platinum, but I'll take the cash instead.
As far as I can see, RH is about the distribution and existence of primes between magnitudinal squares. It is not about determining primality. I know when we invert things, things seem strange and more complex. Did I say ''complex''? I hate complex numbers.
I guess I'm going to have to go out and get me some math books? Yikes. Isn't that getting a bit too geeky?
If I do get a copy of Prime Obsession (thanks for the tip!), it will be the first time I geekily go out and buy a 'math' book.
Should you care about the RH? It depends. A proof would get you a million bucks, which certainly doesn't as far as it used to, unfortunately. A proof would actually be worth hundreds of billions of ounces of very fine platinum, but I'll take the cash instead.
As far as I can see, RH is about the distribution and existence of primes between magnitudinal squares. It is not about determining primality. I know when we invert things, things seem strange and more complex. Did I say ''complex''? I hate complex numbers.
I guess I'm going to have to go out and get me some math books? Yikes. Isn't that getting a bit too geeky?
If I do get a copy of Prime Obsession (thanks for the tip!), it will be the first time I geekily go out and buy a 'math' book.
There are two basic ways of defining the zeta function, and lots of other, more advanced ways. The reason that there are so many ways to express the same function is that historically, many mathematicians have been trying to understand its properties. One of the ways you can tell that a problem is hard is that it has a long history of failed attempts at solution, and the Riemann hypothesis is a very good example of this. Over the years, many people have tried to gain new insight or perspective on the zeta function by transforming it into different forms, and by now there are a LOT of different known forms for it, as a look at this site shows.
This trick of transforming a function into new forms is not just a mathematician trick. Everybody does this when something is puzzling; it's just an attempt to find a perspective that will make thinks make sense. If you are doing a jigsaw puzzle and you get stuck, you try looking at it from the other side of the table, because something might show up from that perspective that wasn't obvious from the first perspective. Mathematicians are doing this same thing when they try to look at the zeta function in different forms.
If the Riemann hypothesis had been an easy problem, it would have been solved long ago, and the literature of mathematics would not be littered with these alternate forms of zeta, which are really a byproduct of all the failed attempts at proving the hypothesis. If you see lots of wolf footprints around a hole in the ground, you know that there was an interesting animal in that hole, and that the wolf tried and failed many times to get at it. If you see lots of alternate forms for a function, you known there was an interesting conjecture there, and mathematicians tried and failed many times to prove it.
Of course, these failed attempts aren't a total waste of time, because something is learned in each attempt, which makes success more likely in the next attempt. Also, knowledge gained from trying to solve one problem often is useful in other areas, just the same as the way the U.S. space program gave us Teflon, which is useful even if you aren't trying to get to the moon.
Now just why were mathematicians so interested in the zeta function? Looking at the two basic forms will make this fairly clear:
First form: take every integer starting with 1, and raise it to the -s power, and then add them all up. That's the value of zeta(s). For instance, zeta(2) = 1^-2 + 2^-2 + 3^-2 + 4^-2 + ... = 1 + 1/4 + 1/9 + 1/16 + ... . Some values of s make the function blow up, and others don't. For instance, zeta(2) has a finite value, even though it involves adding up an infinite number of terms, because they get smaller fast enough that they don't add up to too much. On the other hand, zeta(0) is = 1^0 + 2^0 + 3^0 + 4^0 + ... = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + ... , which obviously DOES blow up to infinity, because you are adding up an infinite number of 1's.
Second form: for ONLY THE PRIME NUMBERS, take each one and raise it to the -s power, then subtract that from 1. This gives a list of numbers, which you MULTIPLY together. Then take the reciprocal of this number. That is also zeta(s). For instance, to calculate zeta(2), you do this:
Primes:
2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, ...
Primes raised to the -2 power:
1/4, 1/9, 1/25, 1/49, 1/121, 1/169, 1/289, ...
1 - primes^-2:
1-1/4, 1-1/9, 1-1/25, 1-1/49, 1-1/121, 1-1/169, 1-1/289, ...
Multiply them together:
(3/4)*(8/9)*(24/25)*(48/49)*(120/121)*(168/169)*(288/289)*.... = some number X.
zeta(2) is 1/X.
Since this second form involves the prime numbers, but the first form involves all positive integers, the fact that these two forms are actually the same function shows that there is some kind of relationship between the prime numbers and all the integers. Mathematicians looking for patterns in prime numbers hope to use this relationship to find the pattern. By looking at this zeta function in many different ways, they have tried to gain insight into how the prime numbers fit within the integers, how they are spread out, whether certain patterns appear, and so on. So that's why the zeta function has so many mathematicians' footprints all around it.
I know that this thread has moved on to other arguments, but I felt that the original question had not been answered in the appropriate way. Also, although very many very smart people have tackled this question before, it is always logically possible that someone may come up with the answer tomorrow.
(By the way, scientists don't use physics and math to blow up the world. It's politicians who do that. Most scientists that I know are total pacifists, so I don't think you need to fear that your formula will be used in a bomb. Besides, it's a NUMBER THEORY formula that you have found, and number theory is the one branch of mathematics that is least useful to physics. It is very "pure" mathematics, and mathematicians work on it because it is beautiful, not because it is practical.)
Hope that helps!
--Stuart Anderson
This trick of transforming a function into new forms is not just a mathematician trick. Everybody does this when something is puzzling; it's just an attempt to find a perspective that will make thinks make sense. If you are doing a jigsaw puzzle and you get stuck, you try looking at it from the other side of the table, because something might show up from that perspective that wasn't obvious from the first perspective. Mathematicians are doing this same thing when they try to look at the zeta function in different forms.
If the Riemann hypothesis had been an easy problem, it would have been solved long ago, and the literature of mathematics would not be littered with these alternate forms of zeta, which are really a byproduct of all the failed attempts at proving the hypothesis. If you see lots of wolf footprints around a hole in the ground, you know that there was an interesting animal in that hole, and that the wolf tried and failed many times to get at it. If you see lots of alternate forms for a function, you known there was an interesting conjecture there, and mathematicians tried and failed many times to prove it.
Of course, these failed attempts aren't a total waste of time, because something is learned in each attempt, which makes success more likely in the next attempt. Also, knowledge gained from trying to solve one problem often is useful in other areas, just the same as the way the U.S. space program gave us Teflon, which is useful even if you aren't trying to get to the moon.
Now just why were mathematicians so interested in the zeta function? Looking at the two basic forms will make this fairly clear:
First form: take every integer starting with 1, and raise it to the -s power, and then add them all up. That's the value of zeta(s). For instance, zeta(2) = 1^-2 + 2^-2 + 3^-2 + 4^-2 + ... = 1 + 1/4 + 1/9 + 1/16 + ... . Some values of s make the function blow up, and others don't. For instance, zeta(2) has a finite value, even though it involves adding up an infinite number of terms, because they get smaller fast enough that they don't add up to too much. On the other hand, zeta(0) is = 1^0 + 2^0 + 3^0 + 4^0 + ... = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + ... , which obviously DOES blow up to infinity, because you are adding up an infinite number of 1's.
Second form: for ONLY THE PRIME NUMBERS, take each one and raise it to the -s power, then subtract that from 1. This gives a list of numbers, which you MULTIPLY together. Then take the reciprocal of this number. That is also zeta(s). For instance, to calculate zeta(2), you do this:
Primes:
2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, ...
Primes raised to the -2 power:
1/4, 1/9, 1/25, 1/49, 1/121, 1/169, 1/289, ...
1 - primes^-2:
1-1/4, 1-1/9, 1-1/25, 1-1/49, 1-1/121, 1-1/169, 1-1/289, ...
Multiply them together:
(3/4)*(8/9)*(24/25)*(48/49)*(120/121)*(168/169)*(288/289)*.... = some number X.
zeta(2) is 1/X.
Since this second form involves the prime numbers, but the first form involves all positive integers, the fact that these two forms are actually the same function shows that there is some kind of relationship between the prime numbers and all the integers. Mathematicians looking for patterns in prime numbers hope to use this relationship to find the pattern. By looking at this zeta function in many different ways, they have tried to gain insight into how the prime numbers fit within the integers, how they are spread out, whether certain patterns appear, and so on. So that's why the zeta function has so many mathematicians' footprints all around it.
I know that this thread has moved on to other arguments, but I felt that the original question had not been answered in the appropriate way. Also, although very many very smart people have tackled this question before, it is always logically possible that someone may come up with the answer tomorrow.
(By the way, scientists don't use physics and math to blow up the world. It's politicians who do that. Most scientists that I know are total pacifists, so I don't think you need to fear that your formula will be used in a bomb. Besides, it's a NUMBER THEORY formula that you have found, and number theory is the one branch of mathematics that is least useful to physics. It is very "pure" mathematics, and mathematicians work on it because it is beautiful, not because it is practical.)
Hope that helps!
--Stuart Anderson
the zeta function would be linked by the holomorphics functions.then the prime
numbers distribuitions will be associated to the complex vector space.So the
prime numbers are derived in its distribuitions by the imaginary numbers.then the pattern is not given entire numbers,ans linear,but by fraction and nonlinear.
thence the riemann's hypothesis will appear in variable principal curvature curves.
numbers distribuitions will be associated to the complex vector space.So the
prime numbers are derived in its distribuitions by the imaginary numbers.then the pattern is not given entire numbers,ans linear,but by fraction and nonlinear.
thence the riemann's hypothesis will appear in variable principal curvature curves.
QUOTE (mr_homm+Jan 12 2008, 07:37 PM)
Hope that helps!
--Stuart Anderson
Indubitably mr_homm. Thank you.
--Stuart Anderson
Indubitably mr_homm. Thank you.
yes (who am i kiddin) but thanks for your patience, at least i see from a different perspective and the missing link was the connection between integers and primes
think i should've posted original question in the homework section, and saved a lot of grief
one thing tho, if scientists are generally pacifist, why are so many vile weapons of destruction constantly developed? is the race to find higgs boson not going to lead ultimately to the development of some kind of matter annihilator - despite scientists best intentions??
think i should've posted original question in the homework section, and saved a lot of grief
one thing tho, if scientists are generally pacifist, why are so many vile weapons of destruction constantly developed? is the race to find higgs boson not going to lead ultimately to the development of some kind of matter annihilator - despite scientists best intentions??
QUOTE (arealperson+Jan 13 2008, 11:20 PM)
one thing tho, if scientists are generally pacifist, why are so many vile weapons of destruction constantly developed? is the race to find higgs boson not going to lead ultimately to the development of some kind of matter annihilator - despite scientists best intentions??
Knowledge isn't good or bad, it's what you do with that knowledge which decides. Understanding nuclear processes isn't evil. I know how nuclear processes work, that doesn't mean I want to build a nuclear weapon and kill millions of people. But some people want to. I know how to start fires, that doesn't make me an arsonist.
People don't get on with other people. That's a fact about human nature. Having some weapons is a requirement.
You're basically trying to pin the blame for human nature on scientists. That's just stupid.
Knowledge isn't good or bad, it's what you do with that knowledge which decides. Understanding nuclear processes isn't evil. I know how nuclear processes work, that doesn't mean I want to build a nuclear weapon and kill millions of people. But some people want to. I know how to start fires, that doesn't make me an arsonist.
People don't get on with other people. That's a fact about human nature. Having some weapons is a requirement.
You're basically trying to pin the blame for human nature on scientists. That's just stupid.
QUOTE (arealperson+Jan 10 2008, 07:24 AM)
Hilbert, Albert, close nuff...
can't read q's 7 and 8 cos they not there, just same 1 & 2 repeated. but if they are written in symbols then forget it
our formula for finding primes:
A the last known prime
B result after applying my very simple function to A
C the difference between A and B
C + F = new prime
F has to fulfil the following criteria:
must result in an odd number (not 5) when added to C;
result must obviously be larger than A if you are looking for next prime;
F must itself sum up to a prime (eg. 58, 5 + 8 =13);
if you are left with a choice of possible numbers, it is the smallest
that's it
note: B always ends in the opposite odd/even to the first digit of A, and C always ends in the same odd/even (as begining of A) which is what makes me wonder if the very simple function may have something to do with pos/neg charges or atomic spin.
C, by the way, turns out to be a constant (expressed a little differently for each group of 100, but always sums up to the same single number) which makes me think of fractal scales
have got some very interesting results when applied function to naturally occuring constants etc.
when applied to normal integers (as opposed to primes), at the point where they pass from one group of 100s to another, the results split and logically BOTH ARE EQUALLY TRUE at the same time, in fact you can choose whichever one you like it doesn't make any difference - or both - which makes me wonder if it may possibly have something to do with quantum states
again no am not giving the very simple function, for reasons stated in previous posts. it's probably faaaaaar too simple for you lot to get your heads around anyway
keep it real
Well I would patent it if it's for real. Your description of your formula sounds interesting.
Defintely fractal not unlike a shell within a shell within a shell... mix in some helicity and we might start getting somewhere...
Best of luck!
can't read q's 7 and 8 cos they not there, just same 1 & 2 repeated. but if they are written in symbols then forget it
our formula for finding primes:
A the last known prime
B result after applying my very simple function to A
C the difference between A and B
C + F = new prime
F has to fulfil the following criteria:
must result in an odd number (not 5) when added to C;
result must obviously be larger than A if you are looking for next prime;
F must itself sum up to a prime (eg. 58, 5 + 8 =13);
if you are left with a choice of possible numbers, it is the smallest
that's it
note: B always ends in the opposite odd/even to the first digit of A, and C always ends in the same odd/even (as begining of A) which is what makes me wonder if the very simple function may have something to do with pos/neg charges or atomic spin.
C, by the way, turns out to be a constant (expressed a little differently for each group of 100, but always sums up to the same single number) which makes me think of fractal scales
have got some very interesting results when applied function to naturally occuring constants etc.
when applied to normal integers (as opposed to primes), at the point where they pass from one group of 100s to another, the results split and logically BOTH ARE EQUALLY TRUE at the same time, in fact you can choose whichever one you like it doesn't make any difference - or both - which makes me wonder if it may possibly have something to do with quantum states
again no am not giving the very simple function, for reasons stated in previous posts. it's probably faaaaaar too simple for you lot to get your heads around anyway
keep it real
Well I would patent it if it's for real. Your description of your formula sounds interesting.
Defintely fractal not unlike a shell within a shell within a shell... mix in some helicity and we might start getting somewhere...
Best of luck!
thanks for the encouragement pjparent001
am trying out different versions of the principle function, and will follow your advivce
just for the record, am calling it Fi Function ("fee") as that's my name
if this highly silly function is to be believed, amongst other stuff, the fi function reveals an unexpected slant on Koide's relationship, and shows infinity to be not infinite but the end of a very big cycle
no idea how to go about adding helicity
am trying out different versions of the principle function, and will follow your advivce
just for the record, am calling it Fi Function ("fee") as that's my name
if this highly silly function is to be believed, amongst other stuff, the fi function reveals an unexpected slant on Koide's relationship, and shows infinity to be not infinite but the end of a very big cycle
no idea how to go about adding helicity
Your function is now sounding to be a bit fictitious, however like I said, if it's better than already known methods, it would be valuable.
Personally, I'm beginning to think one might conclude the primes are the ultimate un-fractal.
Personally, I'm beginning to think one might conclude the primes are the ultimate un-fractal.
fictitious, eh pj? because i called it silly? only because it is ~ no sensible mathematician would do such a thing and expect results .. or is it wordplay (fi/ctitious) u are doing?
or because of what i said about leptons and infinity .. these are real, and there's more!
primes the ultimate unfractal? the aforementioned constants seem to demonstrate fractality ..
would hate to lose support on the forum!
off subject, maybe the Big Bang is an echo of the previous set of scientists (who had evolved to exactly the same point as us) accidentally blowing apart their universe in an attempt to recreate the Big Bang before that ....
primes may not be fractal, but life is!
or because of what i said about leptons and infinity .. these are real, and there's more!
primes the ultimate unfractal? the aforementioned constants seem to demonstrate fractality ..
would hate to lose support on the forum!
off subject, maybe the Big Bang is an echo of the previous set of scientists (who had evolved to exactly the same point as us) accidentally blowing apart their universe in an attempt to recreate the Big Bang before that ....
primes may not be fractal, but life is!
QUOTE (arealperson+Jan 15 2008, 06:55 PM)
fictitious, eh pj? because i called it silly? only because it is ~ no sensible mathematician would do such a thing and expect results .. or is it wordplay (fi/ctitious) u are doing?
or because of what i said about leptons and infinity .. these are real, and there's more!
primes the ultimate unfractal? the aforementioned constants seem to demonstrate fractality ..
would hate to lose support on the forum!
off subject, maybe the Big Bang is an echo of the previous set of scientists (who had evolved to exactly the same point as us) accidentally blowing apart their universe in an attempt to recreate the Big Bang before that ....
primes may not be fractal, but life is!
yes, only wordplay... not to worry
There are many algorithms already out there for finding, generating and determining primes. Most if not all require vast amounts of resources when dealing with massive numbers.
I found this interesting piece on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirichlet%27s...ic_progressions
I think it is rather odd to think a function following a precise set of rules could produce the un-pattern of the primes. Funny thing is that if we simply produce a multiplication table, the numbers that don't show up are prime... except that it takes forever...
A very nice piece on the subject of prime numbers.
http://arxiv.org/abs/math.HO/0512143
P.S. Intuitively speaking, I thinkfeel there is some helical property involved...
Cheers
or because of what i said about leptons and infinity .. these are real, and there's more!
primes the ultimate unfractal? the aforementioned constants seem to demonstrate fractality ..
would hate to lose support on the forum!
off subject, maybe the Big Bang is an echo of the previous set of scientists (who had evolved to exactly the same point as us) accidentally blowing apart their universe in an attempt to recreate the Big Bang before that ....
primes may not be fractal, but life is!
yes, only wordplay... not to worry
There are many algorithms already out there for finding, generating and determining primes. Most if not all require vast amounts of resources when dealing with massive numbers.
I found this interesting piece on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirichlet%27s...ic_progressions
I think it is rather odd to think a function following a precise set of rules could produce the un-pattern of the primes. Funny thing is that if we simply produce a multiplication table, the numbers that don't show up are prime... except that it takes forever...
A very nice piece on the subject of prime numbers.
http://arxiv.org/abs/math.HO/0512143
P.S. Intuitively speaking, I thinkfeel there is some helical property involved...
Cheers
what are the last tentatives to solve the riemannian's hypothesis? what famous
mathematicians have tryed solutions to solve that problem?
mathematicians have tryed solutions to solve that problem?
QUOTE (mott.carl+Jan 19 2008, 05:57 PM)
what are the last tentatives to solve the riemannian's hypothesis? what famous
mathematicians have tryed solutions to solve that problem?
what are the last tentatives to solve the riemannian's hypothesis? what famous
mathematicians have tryed solutions to solve that problem?
yeah thats what i want to know
thanks pj, am still reading it all
amaaaaaazing
have you come across Matthew Watkins?
mathematicians have tryed solutions to solve that problem?
what are the last tentatives to solve the riemannian's hypothesis? what famous
mathematicians have tryed solutions to solve that problem?
yeah thats what i want to know
thanks pj, am still reading it all
amaaaaaazing
have you come across Matthew Watkins?
re last tentives: Sorry. Would have to research that. re Watkins: Nope. re ''Fi'' function: Interesting. Will eventually take a closer look at it. re pdf: Your welcome.
something else interesting - the ages in Genesis given for Adam and his decsendants are impossibly great by our standards (for siring their first children and dying).
however ... after feeding to the fi function they correspond to the sort of ages we would expect
however ... after feeding to the fi function they correspond to the sort of ages we would expect
QUOTE (arealperson+Jan 22 2008, 03:46 PM)
something else interesting - the ages in Genesis given for Adam and his decsendants are impossibly great by our standards (for siring their first children and dying).
however ... after feeding to the fi function they correspond to the sort of ages we would expect
I think 25'ish was considered old in those days.
however ... after feeding to the fi function they correspond to the sort of ages we would expect
I think 25'ish was considered old in those days.
QUOTE (arealperson+Jan 13 2008, 03:20 PM)
the missing link was the connection between integers and primes
Yes well if you do find that missing link, do let us know. Thank you in advance.
Yes well if you do find that missing link, do let us know. Thank you in advance.
As part of my research on number theory, I'm looking for an algorithm that will generate 32 million prime numbers per second on a IBM PC, single core.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.