Nice! Although I think it's amusing that they said "odd primes" as if there's any even primes
2 is a prime number...
2017 is not just another prime number
21–30 of 63 posts
Re: 2017 is not just another prime number
#22Re: 2017 is not just another prime number
#23Meh. A prime number year last happened in 2011. Just kidding... happy new prime number year!
BTW I'm really looking forward to the next perfect square year: 2025 (45^2). It last happened in 1936, and won't happen again until 2116.
Re: 2017 is not just another prime number
#24Re: 2017 is not just another prime number
#25Nice! Although I think it's amusing that they said "odd primes" as if there's any even primes
Uh... Not sure if sarcasm...
Re: 2017 is not just another prime number
#26They forgot to calculate how many certificates on the Internet use 2017 as one of their primes :-)
Or, how many use a prime <= 2017, for that matter.
Re: 2017 is not just another prime number
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every number is special. Proof is by contradiction: Assume that not every number is mathematically interesting and let X be the first such number. However, the fact that X is the lowest such number is itself pretty special, right?
Well the first number that doesn't appear in OEIS is 18159. That make it interesting to me , but apparently this number isn't interesting to mathematicians. Of course since OEIS is finite, there will always be numbers which don't make it. What's really interesting is that some numbers are disproportionately underrepresented. They appear much less often than other numbers of the same size. And if you plot each number…
> Well the first number that doesn't appear in OEIS is 18159. That make it interesting to me, but apparently this number isn't interesting to mathematicians.
I have a diploma in math (equiv. to master of science in math) and I'm interested in 18159. Does that count? (Moreover, I'm interested in 18159 for exactly the reason you stated.)
Re: 2017 is not just another prime number
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can this proof be adapted for the reals, or is it only the case that every integer is special?
It's not a proof of anything, so it can't be adapted to the reals. Specialness has no rigorous mathematical definition, and certainly the second non-special number is not special, even if the first is. But more mathematically speaking, given a standard real number, there is no "next" real number. Induction is one of the defining properties of the natural numbers and it is induction that allows one to construct proofs…
> On the other, other hand
You might like the alternative (and very nerdy) phrase "on the gripping hand" as an alternative. It (usually?) connotes a third option that invalidates the other two in some way, as you've done here.
Re: 2017 is not just another prime number
#29Verifications of all the statements using SageMath, in case you want to be convinced or explore further: https://cloud.sagemath.com/projects/4a5f0542-5873-4eed-a85c-...
> 2017 can be written as a sum of cubes of five distinct integers.
This gives no results in SageMath...
Re: 2017 is not just another prime number
#30> The sum of the cube of gap of primes up to 2017 is a prime number. That is (3-2)^3 + (5-3)^3 + (7-5)^3 + (11-7)^3 + ... + (2017-2011)^3 is a prime number.
For the non-mathematically inclined, how do mathematicians come up with these? Are these just observations that they happened to witness, or are there underlying theoretical properties that allow one to derive this claim?