Trurl

I agree that 4+ thousand are not all “seen”. But the ads are targeted. They will guide your interest. So you do a search and get 1000 responses you wii be guided to one. It is an interactive process. Remember search engines control what is found. I’m not a psychologist but when you look at a page of content you make multiple decisions and assumptions in milliseconds. Also you are not aware of all your thoughts. That is just observations on how I approach advertisements. I would put effort in designing an experiment but the advertisers already know all this. I wish I knew the goal of such advertising. And I wonder how it effects our decisions. And why did we allow this internet evolve this way. @dimreepr Ads to other ads. But reviews are not reliable. If Google results in a sale they should care what you buy. That should make them neutral. But are they neutral? I became interested in this because so many people are calling this out saying it is negatively effecting us. We don’t have the means to beat it, but we can defend against it waiting on the world to change.

It is important to note that my Pastor brought up the advertisements we are exposed to. It is me that compared it to external influences. But my question can be answered by those who prefer Faith or strictly science. We could say everyone has their own beliefs. But what influenced these beliefs? My estimate of how many ads we saw a day was around 500. But I think 4+ thousand is probably right. If someone or something is influencing how you surf the web than everything you see is causing a decision reaction in your mind. I know you think that fool believes in God. The scientific method determines my decisions. But the influencers already know what you believe. So it comes down to did you mindfully make that decision or did some web content specifically geared to you help you make up your mind? And I am no different than you. I hope we have free will and can work together even if we don’t share the same views. I have been reading on this subject and I think people are now seeing the bad of social media. But it is not my idea behind this. This was known before in what Bruce Schneider writes. So you say your brain sees not what you’re eyes see. But this is subconscious isn’t it? If 4000 was legitimate Google should know. How do we test this scientifically in a practical way? I mean is there any way to count average ads per hour? What would you say is the minimal speed in that a news story or ad could make you “think” about it? I’m guessing milliseconds but that’s just a guess.

My Pastor said last Sunday that Google estimates that 4 to 10 thousand advertisements are seen by a person on a given day. That seems high, but I wonder if it factors the data tracing the user by computers like surf history and phone usage. I was taught that you design your according to the target audience. But this rule does not work backwards because I don’t always know who has me as their target audience. So we are subject to thousands of messages a day and we don’t know who created them or how they are trying to influence us. We don’t know what it is that they are trying to make as act. I hope free will exists in that we could make choices and not be controlled by ads. But it still has an effect of some sort that we are probably unaware of. My question is: “Are these ads a byproduct of communication or are the ads controlled to influence behavior? This topic was the theme of the Matrix. Neo is offered candy by the Oracle and replies, Do I have a choice?” That is does he make a choice or does the fact that he thinks a certain way means his choice is already determined.

I don’t understand. I have been on the opposite end of this in my simple yet interesting post. It just goes to prove my theory that a pattern of Primes will never happen. Not because there isn’t a pattern but because the thoughts that lead to a pattern cannot be communicated from one person to another. For my post it came down to if I could factor a large SemiPrime or not. I couldn’t do it efficiently. But could reflect my programming skills and not my equations. Just as I started, your write up is too complex. It would take months to sort it out and it could be wrong. I have the same troubles when explaining. Give me an example where I can plug and chug. I am always interested in Primes. Why don’t you elaborate on the diagram of the ellipse.

This is not an easy question. It could be reworded to say, “how to perform at peak performance?” Like how to do math under sleep deprivation or how to find an address in a city you do not know with time being a factor. I think this is psychology’s best application. But I am not the best at doing karate forms. I try to get a visual picture and “rotate” left, right, turn, kick but I am wondering how the others go through the routine. I was wondering if there are any techniques for kinesthetic intelligence or is it my learning approach?

Kinesthetic intelligence How do you improve kinesthetic intelligence? Say walking on a treadmill and trying to add times and speeds and calories. I find it hard to do mental math when walking in the treadmill. And then there is karate forms. When I get tired say 20 pushups followed by 30 sit-ups the forms become more challenging. And then I make mistakes like kicking with the right leg instead of the left side. I know this is natural to become tired. And this is why we train. Actually once I recover I feel better and probably have better concentration. But how do you improve concentration and performance as you become exhausted?

@noobinmath I wish I could create a pattern from a sieve. Here is a proposal about how to go about it. If you graph the 2 equations separately as pnp equals all integers zero to infinity, as the equation is less than one; pnp is a semi-Prime and the Prime number is conformed to be Prime. This may or may not work. Also do not confuse x on the graph equaling pnp as x in the equation equaling the Prime number. I will have more on this later. But since you want a pattern in the sieve I thought I would share my attempt. Where x * y = pnp When y = Sqrt[pnp^3/(pnp*x^2+x)] So that, x* Sqrt[pnp^3/(pnp*x^2+x)] = pnp pnp – pnp = 0 Let x equal any Prime number. 5 for instance. Graph pnp = x ; at x on the graph at that instance = pnp So where 5* Sqrt[pnp^3/(pnp*5^2+5)] – pnp = 0, then pnp is a semi-Prime and we can plug it into the equation and find y (the larger Prime number) And if we continue to graph over all real numbers we will find every Prime number in existence. [(pnp / (Sqrt[(pnp^3 / (pnp*5^2+5)])) -5] == 0 == [5* Sqrt[pnp^3/(pnp*5^2+5)] – pnp]

You are right there is a lot of Riemann stuff. I just thought the surface had to do with the graph of the distribution of zeros. I’m probably wrong but this stuff is complex. I’m am looking to find any application of Prime numbers I can. Other than cryptography. Why are Primes so popular in mathematics. Just because we can’t find their pattern? Why did Primes interest the ancient Greeks if you can’t built cities with them? Are the Riemann surfaces related to the Riemann Hypothesis? I believe that Prime numbers relate to calculus in the analysis of the graph. If you could find the graphs that form the Riemann function you could find the graphs that when combined make up any function’s graph. That is what I took from the book. But what other applications of Primes are there?

Differential forms on a Riemann surface Calculus applies to the properties of the graph. A differential equation. I only know the basics of such things. But if you get bored studying forms try analyzing the Zeta function 😜 Just looking at that link I posted I can’t even follow the notation let alone the math. But if differential forms have to deal with the addition and manipulation of functions then you would want to study the Riemann stuff.

@Genady Did you read: Prime Numbers and the Riemann Hypothesis; Mazur and Stein? I finished it Tuesday. Excellent read. It focused on the logical steps behind the hypothesis instead of deriving equations. There were equations but the book showed the reasoning behind them. I have never read a math work that gets you up to speed on such a complex problem so fast. 5 stars ⭐️

But isn’t a golden spiral a type of log spiral? What if the stair steps of the Riemann graph could be put geometrically on to a logarithmic spiral? And with various logarithmic spirals able to be drawn changing the “amount of step?” But I understand you point. I have seen some good demonstrations of the golden spiral on YouTube.

I have to look at it again. I think the problem is the author claims a significant pattern without an explanation. So what he said could be right but we don’t know the context. I have issues with this journal entry. It tells us a history we don’t need to know and has one paragraph of content. But I could not find any other articles relating Primes to biology.

I am interested in how Prime numbers relate to biology. A double helix is made of 2 logarithmic spirals. And there is a field of bioinformatics which I know nothing about. But are there relationships with Primes in biology and if so where should I begin. That is with no training in biology. I found a journal article on the subject but it didn’t get interesting till the last paragraph. And the article didn’t explain these relationships. https://d197for5662m48.cloudfront.net/documents/publicationstatus/39104/preprint_pdf/e048de98234bc62175f7f7c0a366e35b.pdf I found it interesting that Prime quantities are found in the nucleotides. But I don’t think it is enough to establish a pattern. I believe that you can express the stair steps of the Riemann Hypothesis can be graphed in a logarithmic spiral. Can you apply the graph of a logarithmic spiral to a double helix.

Baron, did you use A.I. to write Prime Mechanics? To me it is an attempt to explain the World nonsensically. Like a pun. Like something Stanislaw Lem would write. It would make a good sci-fi story. Or an excellent alternative world for fantasy or video game. I don’t say that to make fun of your work. I don’t know higher physics. And it could be higher physics sounds like a fantasy world anyway. I am interested in the Prime number aspect. How are you relating Primes to physics? Do Primes exist naturally or did man create them? To me your theories are just a thought experiment. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. You ideas are uncanny, but that is good when it comes to Primes.

I know we have physics and still can’t travel the speed of light. But aren’t engineers focused on mathematics in training? I know math is a lot of thinking and building is more tangible. But how do you build incorporating mathematical principles and not discover them. Today we take the math as something your taught. But when written word isn’t developed how do you share the law of sines? Math is a language. But it can also tell time. Could it be a civilization that was mathematically advanced was technologically advanced? And what type of math a civilization has produced will determine the future of that society’s technology? I think that is why everyone in the forum likes math. And we talk about it in spare time. We are looking to build the society through math.

I saw a debate once. I thought it was here on SFN. Was math created or discovered? Is math created to explain the world or did it always exist and we happened to notice it? Math is a language understood by everyone. I wonder how such advanced buildings were constructed before history was recorded. I don’t think anyone can explain were it came from. My question is how can you be mathematically advanced and not be technologically advanced?

So in 2007 I tried to make a logarithmic spiral show a pattern of Prime numbers. Long story short, I couldn’t get it to work. It was before I heard of the Riemann Hypothesis. The area of the logarithmic spiral could be set to the integral of li(X). I am not claiming it works. I am asking what you think of placing the Riemann Stair Steps to a logarithmic spiral. I never had my own math this old before. I can’t remember what I was thinking when I wrote it.

That’s the book. The authors wrote it working in just 1 week a year for 10 years. The one I ordered wasn’t too expensive. I think the book is printed as you order. Excellent read. It puts the number theory into sentences. It is good for undergraduate or lower level graduate. That is my level. For me the notation of number theory is above my education. I know the math of things like the Riemann Hypothesis is complex, but the idea should still be generalized in words. Didn’t someone say if you can’t explain the problem simply, you don’t understand it.

You are right I need to work at becoming a better programmer. I don’t know much programming beyond what I learned in college. I tried to bridge the gap by using math scripting in Mathematica. It gave me access to things that require some more know how than my current level. And I am not against asking Chat gpt to program it for me. But remember, programming can find a counter example, but cannot prove math. I also am still looking for a better way to analyze graphs. I want the computer to analyze the graph according to math algorithms I input. NTuff linked to a college presentation which referenced the book: Prime Numbers and the Riemann Hypothesis. I have been reading this book. The book makes the topics understandable, but the content is still complex. The is no easy way to put the Riemann Hypothesis, but this book explains the problem and does a good job at explaining the approaches to a solution. Reading in this book, I have wondered if I have stair steps in my graphs. And if I should be concentrating on finding large Primes instead of finding a pattern. I was looking at my odometer again today. It hit 097777 and then 097797. That is a short time to have 97 and 77 repeated. And it made me wonder is the reason we can’t find a pattern in Primes is because we are counting? 2, 3, 5 ,7 …. Is there a way to find Prime numbers in we don’t go by counting numbers? I know this is advanced and I don’t have a solution, but can you see what I mean? Does that statement make sense?

Ok. So the views under the posts aren’t exact. But I was wondering if they could still be useful. On my Posts: Simple Yet Interesting and Prime Products One More Time, I have over 40,000 combined views. So these post are seen a lot, although 40,000 is much larger than the precise number of views. Why am I concerned with the number of views? Well I thought it was a pattern in factorization of semiPrimes. Obviously if it would have worked, RSA would no longer be in use and most digital signatures wouldn’t be able to authenticate. But we would have a pattern of Prime numbers in return. But I look on the bright side. Maybe there is still use of the work. Maybe it can find larger Prime numbers. My goal started as trying to find a weakness in RSA and then a pattern in factorization. It sounds disastrous to try and attempt such things, but remember people and governments are attacking ciphers all the time. Wouldn’t it be better to know RSA is flawed. That is, if it is. And since we don’t have to worry about the destruction of RSA, my challenge to the viewers is to find a legitimate application for Simple Yet Interesting. That is, the Pappy Craylar Conjecture. I am researching sources on Prime numbers, in order to see what is already known and try and find an application for the Pappy Craylar Conjecture. I know views aren’t the goal of science. But the reason I wanted views was that someone would come and prove my work. There is a networked science in the book Reinventing Discovery by Michael Nielsen, These posts were my attempts at networked science.

I’m going to ruin the Matrix Trilogy like Amy ruined Indy Jones for Sheldon on the Big Bang Theory. She ask why Indy stopped the Germans will they opened up the Arc and died anyway. So why did the machines in the Matrix use humans for batteries when they have the ability to reach the atmosphere and space. In the first movie Morpheus says we scorched the sky. ( A attempt to eliminate solar power?) But in the 3rd movie Neo and Trinity fly above the scorched sky. So if machines don’t need us for batteries, why not destroy humans and we go to all the trouble of a simulated world? I think the machines didn’t want to destroy their creators, the humans. Maybe the simulated world is to prevent wars between machines and humans? Maybe it means the human mind is superior to the machines? Maybe the machines are wondering if they have a soul? Maybe the machines know the human body is a machine and there should be similarities between machines and humans? But why do machines fight for the Earth when they can inhabit all of space? And who governs the machines? Do the machines have free will?

You’re right that my programming skills are lacking. But as with large Primes programming, large numbers in C++ are difficult. In the Simple Yet Interesting, I graphed 2564855351 and it resulted in zero. That is not the same as the Riemann zeroes, but I want an educated guess to plug and chug. One mathematician said trillions of zeroes have been found at 1/2. But again I don’t know how to program imaginary numbers. I rely on Wolfram Alpha. But I also want to program something different; something of mine. Should I stick with Mathematica? Also I need something to plug and chug. But I guess finding what to plug and chug is up to me. But what is a good starting point? I treat working with Primes as a learning exercise. They are fifty math problems in one. But the solution may not even be possible. The computer can’t make a proof. But it can disprove if it isn’t at 1/2.

The podcast is too vague. There are just too many people with papers on the Internet that claim to have solved the Riemann Hypothesis. But if you are just searching for zeroes, are there any equations that you could just plug and chug numbers into? I have seen s^-1 summed. But I am searching for other ways to test for zeroes.

Link to 2013 paper: https://annals.math.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/annals-v179-n3-p07-s.pdf

Thanks NTuff. That presentation is excellent. It started off simple and you see how complex it gets. It defines the problem in a short series of slides. And that is what is important: understanding the problem. Wikipedia’s description is hard to understand. I asked Chat gpt if an equation that equals zero at the Prime numbers could relate to the Zeta function. It said no because the Zeta function determines distribution. It said the Mangoldt function would relate better. This may or may not be true, because the presentation showed how the Mangoldt function relates to the Zeta function. So how does the equation I put in “Simple Yet Interesting” compare to Mangoldt? BTW the equation for the odometer is not the one I am comparing to the Zeta function. It is just a model I used to picture patterns as I drive. But I think the problem of finding the distribution of repeating numbers in the odometer relates to the problem of the distribution of Primes. The picture of the podcast is where I heard that an Indian mathematician uploaded his proof of the Riemann hypothesis and no one can tell if he is right.