Re: CHANGING PRIME NUMBERS WORLD!!
- From: tommy1729 <tommy1729@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:45:23 EDT
speedgenerate
raladin wrote:
So you mean there is no precise formula to
the exact n-th value?
I think having the range of primes is to
theup
algorithms for finding the closest bunch ofnumbers
to the "n-th" prime.
Have you heard about a formula to generate
read"n-1"exact nth prime without the need to know the
referencesprime?
If you would bother to READ some of the
suchthat I provided,
you
would find that P. Ribenboim's book contains
online?formulae.
Thanks Pubkeybreaker, can you please write the
formula here or if it is available somewhere
Or the name of the founder?
Thanks for helping :-)
HA !! and you just replied towards me saying you
all references !!!!estimate
but you skipped Pubkeybreaker / Ribenboim !!!
you dont have any formula's at all do you ???
you CANT GIVE YOUR SUPERDUPER FORMULA CAN YOU ???
you SAID you were not looking for a range or
,
but you also admitted you had an error of at least
0.2%
WHICH ALREADY MEANS IT IS NOT EXACT !!!
so dont you dare to claim having that formula !!
go read on Riemann's Zeta function
and dont you dare call yourself a better
mathematician before you know and admitted that
RIEMANN DID FIND A PRIME FORMULA
if you can understand it at least.
and btw i have posted factoring tricks around here
formula
WITH A PART OF THE METHODS
unlike you , who still has to give his first
!!have
despite the arrogance and self-declared genius
discovery.
and if you can give a formula afterall
it will have to compete with my prime tricks ...
yes , i dont only have factoring tricks , i also
prime tricks ...
but you have to give your formula first ...
Riemann Matheyasevich and Wiles forever
tommy1729
I'm not gonna continue a stupid discussion with a
person who just doesn't know what he is talking
about!
Sorry Mr. PERFECT MATHEMATICIAN, how do scientists
reach the 0.00% error rate? Have you ever heard about
Regression Fitting and using series? You should go
find yourself some books to read about then..
I didn't say I read all the books.. I said I am
reading and I thanked for the books resources.. and I
am checking them.. and please post the formula for
generating the primes if you have it.. There is no
stupid person on this earth who would give you what
he found from his own researches and post it here in
a the board where a person like you is trying to make
things seem funny and stupid.
Reimann's findings are about the range.. not the
exact value..I hope you go find yourself something
better than talking non-sense.. or please give me the
formula you are talking about which gives you the
exact value..
I hope you will have a good future as a scientist..
and I am afraid Reimann will come out from his grave
and check your SUPERDUPER Mathematical Replies and
how you are just giving non-sense replies.. without
giving anything related to the topic.. which is "IS
THERE ANY FORMULA FOR FINDING EXACT PRIME VALUES?"
Ok I am claiming I have a formula.. why don't you try
to help with something if you have? Ok some people
provided the books names and I read some of them, and
I do really thank for helping.. but it is not a good
way of discussing scientific topics to reply with
such replies you are using.. please don't continue
the discussion if it is something non-related..
because it is wasting for both of our time!
Thanks in case you will provide any help in advance
:-)
Take care and good luck
its RIEMANN not Reimann !!!
jesus christ , you apparently never heard of him.
and plz read the replies well,
i said you had to give your formula first.
cant spell , cant read and doesnt know what a range is
tsss
and dont think im the only critic towards you
randy poe and rossom also corrected your
" idea of a range or not a range "
so the joke is really on you , not on me.
you are the one who should read the books.
what you seem to be doing is to fit the primes into a functions bye statistic regression ...
but there is no garantee that will ever work.
and besides li(x) was invented as an approximation ( range !!! ) bye gauss.
exact computation CAN BE DONE BYE USING RIEMANNS ZETA FUNCTION ZEROS !!!
READ ABOUT IT !!!!
and if your looking in the library
look for Riemann since Reimann is a poet i believe ...
hahahaha
if your formula is finished , you dont need our help to help building it.
so you might as well post it here.
everything is stored here , every message with date and poster, so nobody can steal your idea, at most apply it for their own work.
since we corrected your "definition of range "
i find it hard to believe you have a formula....
especially since you still need help ( grin )
you have not convinced a single soul on this forum !!!
not even a lanatic or crankpot believes you.
so its time to start convincing us.
preferably bye posting what you got.
but then agian , since Riemann gave a series with a limit that is exactly the prime counting function or even the primes itself , the only thing you can improve seems series convergeance improvement of that...
but since you still have an error in your range ... :-)
you might say 0.2 % is not much ...
but i assume it grows rapidly with the size of the primes :-)
tommy1729
.
- References:
- Re: CHANGING PRIME NUMBERS WORLD!!
- From: raladin
- Re: CHANGING PRIME NUMBERS WORLD!!
- Prev by Date: Re: Simple Analytic Geometry Question
- Next by Date: Re: CHANGING PRIME NUMBERS WORLD!!
- Previous by thread: Re: CHANGING PRIME NUMBERS WORLD!!
- Next by thread: advantage of the octal system
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|