I am sending my friend an email, but I need to draw up the equation. It is a sigma equation! Anyone know the code for this???

ITs a REALLY important equation guys! I need to find out how to make an image of it! Pronto!

Use LaTeX - it can typeset more or less anything mathematical.

Hey, I just figured out a formula for prime numbers. Who do I contact for an award? I know the nobel Prize doesn't have a mathmatics field. Who DO I contact???

Go to a math professor at some university.

 

Just make sure your proof is correct first otherwise you're going to get laughed at.

That's quite an accomplishment you've got there.

I was thinking the same thing. I highly suspect a flaw in the proof.

I can't, oh say, email someone at the nobel prize foundation, or something of the sort?

 

If I weren't so paranoid, I'd show you guys...

Oh, and it works up to 1000. I got lazy and didn't check after that, but I suspect it works...

Unless you can conclusively prove that your formula works for all prime numbers, it's not a proof.

i assume that freeman is talking about a prime number generating function.

 

"Legendre showed that there is no rational algebraic function which always gives primes. In 1752, Goldbach showed that no polynomial with integer coefficients can give a prime for all integer values"

 

taken from

 

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Prime-GeneratingPolynomial.html

 

and if it works to 1000 then i am sure you can use mathematical induction somehow

Ohhh man, I wanna tell you guys... once I get a patent, I'll tell you!

 

BTW, it works up to 10000 (that's as far as I have gotten thus far!)

Like dave said, unless you can prove your formula for all primes in general, it can't be called a proof.

 

If all you're doing is hard number crunching [like the GIMPS project], then it's not really a proof; just finding more primes.

 

I'm interested in your claim though ... any hints as to how you are going about these results? Mersenne numbers? or maybe Chebyshev said it, and I say it again. There is always a prime between n and 2n...

 

[edit]

 

That's a nice link you posted there bloodhound.

You can't patent pure mathematical algorithms, as far as I know.

 

And you haven't got this 'proof' thing down, have you. You have to prove it for all possible numbers, not just 1,000, 10,000 or whatever.

 

Because of the nature of infinity, with number crunching, you're not actually decreasing the possibility of it being wrong, you know.

looks like freeman is a physicist

I guess it would be a conjecture then!

 

As far as hints...the equation itself doesn't find primes! It so freacken ingenious!

OK, I emailed a professor at my local college. After that, what? Assuming I am still correct...

Assuming I am still correct...

 

Then there will be a meeting of great prof's to all talk and see if it correct.

 

and then.......... well maybe on tv. Or get some king of an award.

 

But i'd put it on scienceforums on here, remember you still wrote it first so its yours, and you'll have all your workings out.

Hmmm... all right, just remember: patent pendin! And I thought of it first! I'll sue you!

 

[math]\big_{n=2}^\infty gn[/math] (this is 'a') where g is every positive prime integer, beginning with 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, and 13. You do not find prime numbers, but nonprime numbers! And then [math]\big_{n=2}^\infty n^n'[/math](this is 'b') Where n' is every number beginning with 2, irrelevant to what n is. So, the set of all positive integers minus the set of {a+b}, that is to say, the numbers found in the solution of a and b.

Agghh!!! It does not work!!! Hold on a second!

The equation of 'a' and Equation for 'b' The math font does not work!!!

[math]\sum_{n=2}^\infty gn[/math] is 'a' and [math]\sum_{n=2}^\infty n^n'[/math] is 'b'

You can't patent an academic formula.

 

Any original intellectual work your create is automatically protected by copyright law, no matter what medium you first record it in.

All right! Who do I contact to get a prize?

LaTeX renders fine.

 

[math]n = \sum_{n=2}^{\infty} gn[/math]

 

etc.

 

You almost certainly need to define that function in a much more rigorous mathematical fashion before it's taken seriously. I don't really understand what you're getting at atm.

g is every prime integer starting with 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, and 13. You plug in 2-100 for each prime, and the numbers not found are prime. You add those numbers to the list and do the same for the next 100 numbers. I cannot do it too fast soo, I need a computer to do it. But anways...