Prime number unsolved problems

[@markmilner5087]

The polynomial n^2 + n + 41 fails for n = 40. When n is 40, n^2 - n + 41 gives the prime 1601, but fails when n = 41.

[@gameguardian3373]

Yes

[@debrajghale6025]

@@gameguardian3373 even it support to other number, it does not support to all. Or, it support only limited number.

[@azzteke]

Why do you repeat?

[@adityamishra7711]

I think the goldbach conjecture has to be false, cuz in the reference of the entire infinity, the higher we get the less the density pf prime numbers ( i guess ) So there must be atleast one number that doesn't follows it

[@ethanbottomley-mason8447]

We already know for certain (it has been proved), that any even number bigger than 2 can be written as a sum of four primes. With your logic, we would expect this to not be the case. Also, the primes do become more spread out, but not very spread out. About 1 in every ln(n) of the first n numbers are prime, so the number of combinations of possible sums is very large.

[@andrewmcgurth6677]

At about 1:37 in, there's a chart that incorrectly states the First 1000 Prime Numbers. This chart is actually the prime numbers that exist between 1 and 1000, which counts to about 170 primes.

[@dunningrb]

This is very much a terrific series. Thank you for sharing these!

[@discovermaths]

You're welcome - thanks for watching!

[@beniendharto834]

I have another case of Pythagoras's problem, the problem is such this: sqrt(x-95)=y. Please find the nearest by solution for x integer to 95, therefore it will give y integer solution. For that case, the solutions is x=144, and y=7. we can write the problem as sqrt(x-c)=y. Is there any elegant formula to find x and y for any given c?. x, y, and c is a real integer number, c is an odd number, and x is the nearest number to c that can be squared root. if we can find the beautiful, elegant formula, then we find the formula of prime number

[@robertveith6383]

*@ discovermaths* That chart has the wrong title. It should be called "the prime numbers less than 1,000," not the "first 1,000 prime numbers."

[@alial3802]

I like the way you talk.Thank you for your efforts. You are making math very likable. Ive got a question. Can we say that any positive integer larger than 2 is made of 2^n + some number other than 1 ? Or say, lots of 2s+ some number other than 1? Except 3 as special case offcourse.The reason why i am asking this because thinking about collatz conjecture and goldbach conjecture.

[@discovermaths]

It depends what you take n to mean. If the number of 2's can be less than the maximum that will divide into the given positive integer then the statement is clearly true.

[@yetanotherjohn]

Prime numbers remind me of the relationship between the entire alphabet and the subset of vowels; it's the many consonants that make up the sound of a word, it's the few vowels that make the letters readable and speakable.

[@chandsheikh6208]

Sir, could you please make videos on sequence and series?

[@discovermaths]

Thank you for the suggestion. I'll do my best.

[@subhoghosal7]

@chand are you from Indian Subcontinent? I don't know but your question made me think so.

[@revanthrockz7848]

respected sir! i hope 1601 which is a generated prime for n=40 and 1601 is an prime number - so its not a failure

[@ga35am]

Yep. It fails trivially for n=41. Usually the formula considered has a plus instead of a minus, so it fails for n=40, because 40^2+40+41 = 41x40+41 = 41^2

[@alex_everget]

Professor, 0:39 - this is Hermann Grassmann

[@NAZEER_._AHMAD]

Every prime number satisfy:. ******[(n-2)!-1]÷n=whole number**** Where: n is natural number

[@debrajghale6025]

But, where is summation?

[@sourasishmukherjee637]

and I've found a formula of prime counting factor . its working accurately upto 1000 and then ... it's showing a big error but I would fix it soon .

[@sagarkumar-wv3ir]

Hay bro I am too chained up with this plz can we have a talk if you wish too

[@kaustavdey3175]

How's if anyone have the formula to prove whether it is a prime no or not?

[@beniendharto834]

I have another case of Pythagoras's problem, the problem is such this: sqrt(x-95)=y. Please find the nearest by solution for x integer to 95, therefore it will give y integer solution. For that case, the solutions is x=144, and y=7. we can write the problem as sqrt(x-c)=y. Is there any elegant formula to find x and y for any given c?. x, y, and c is a positive real integer numbers, c is an odd number, and x is the nearest number to c that can be squared root. if we can find the beautiful, elegant formula, then we find the formula of prime number

[@muratcaglyan5015]

I'm curious about your thoughts on this subject. This Video : kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpTTlmxvpZqtqbM

[@maxdebeer4626]

I propose a resolution of the Goldbach conjecture on KZbin under the title Variations Goldbach in 5 episodes. For those interested... But it's in French. Berendans

[@EdMcF1]

Is the interest in primes an artefact of the human mind? I.e. they are just 'numbers' and the issue arises from our classification of them on the basis of an arbitrary designation of being divisible by only 1 and itself?

[@magicfigures]

The new finds in the field of prime numbers. The prime numbers form so-called nests of the prime numbers in the fourth dimensions. Please see the homepage www.number-galaxy.eu in the directory "news" and positions: 01.01.2020 3D bordered prime magic squares in world and antiworld configuration 03.02.2021 Projection 3D bordered prime magic squares on critical linie of Riemann zeta-function. This is completely new in the field of the Riemann hypothesis.

[@thevikingwarrior]

Knowing the order of primes, means knowing where all of the patterns of numbers that are divisible by N, X and 1 are not; where N is the number of being divided and X is a number between 1 and N. It is no surprise that you would struggle to come up with a rule that shows EXACTLY how to do that. It is like me having to learn to work around everyone else all the time, without ever getting them to work around me; when it comes to dealing with problems in my life, which would explain why I have so many problems with it and need to get people to learn that I cannot learn to do this!

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

Ulam spiral patterns are completely understood, and were completely understood by Ulam.

[@kaustavdey3175]

How it will be if Anyone solve the patern of Prime numbers ? Is he get any benefit out of it?

[@madvoice3703]

Love you sir because of you I know how to distribute the prime and how to reverse the multiplication of prime

[@apusapus71]

Are there other sequences of ever larger integers where the next term is unpredictable?

[@BabaBabelOm]

The Goldbach conjecture is solved by Riemann zeta function and vis-versa. That real part of 1/2 is it. That grid of primes looks like a computer chip doesn’t it? 👽😉

[@felixjohanschistadjacobsen767]

No, The Generalized Riemann Hypotisis (lot more dificult) implies (not eqverelet) The Weak Goldbach Conjecture (as the name says; it's weaker). And What's up with the Alien Emoji? Likewise for computer chips, one could argue the same for nearly anyting.

[@dannycalcaben2449]

The proof of goldbach conjecture and Collatz conjecture are very simple. I just can't get anyone to see it., can you help me sir?

[@liviu445]

Show your evidence here, on a paper.

[@dannycalcaben2449]

Hello sir I have a very short proof of the goldbach conjecture and Collatz conjecture., it's beautiful., can u see it?

[@MikeRosoftJH]

... which this comment section is too narrow to contain, I guess.

[@brendawilliams8062]

Like a waterwheel. Or radio activity.

[@sacarvysinju4715]

I made a function that is very nice to calculate rate

[@iscocardona1364]

This man has 70 years

[@Kyanzes]

Euler's prime generating method isn't n2 + n +41? n2 - n + 41 would be 1601 which is a prime. n2 + n +41 fails at 1681.

[@wesleydeng71]

Euler's formula is n2 - n + 41. But it first fails when n=41, not 40.

[@robertveith6383]

Write n^2 for n squared if you cannot show the little exponent.

[@dr.rahulgupta7573]

Sir Regarding prime numbers I have observed that digital root ( sum of digits ) of a prime number ( except 3 ) is never 3 or 6 or 9 . It can be 1or 2 or 4 or 8 or 5 or 7 . DrRahul Rohtak

[@kaustavdey3175]

Excuse me can we talk

[@dr.rahulgupta7573]

@@kaustavdey3175 How can we talk ? I have my WhatsApp no. only .We can comunicate through this method . Plz send your whatsapp number if possible. Thanks .

[@kaustavdey3175]

No problem at all . There is my WhatsApp number ,8900112375.

[@kaustavdey3175]

And Sir you did really a great job. I observed that also

[@dr.rahulgupta7573]

@@kaustavdey3175 Yes sir I am trying to communicate with you.

[@AmitPatel-ps6ho]

Hello sir My nme is Nandish . I know how to find that how many prime numbers between in 1to one lakh and many more.

[@ranieazote271]

Hi Sir, I also have a technique on getting primes but don't know if it holds in larger number

[@chandansingh-jw2kv]

Please describe it

[@revanthrockz7848]

hope u reply

[@rayaanissa9510]

Sir i founded the formula of goldbach's conjecture I'm from somalia

[@StefanReich]

You mean you proved the conjecture?

[@x_gosie]

You don’t even know how to differentiate between Formula and Equation, and also goldbach’s conjecture is a terrific problem. I doubt your claim

[@mahthi5990]

prime numbers are those which are not divisible by any numbers except themselves and 1 so when we divide a prime number with 2 always an odd number is left out as all even numbers are divisible by 2 so every prime number when divided with 2 leaves out an odd number.When two primes are added the left odd numbers can also be added and hence when two odd numbers added it is always an even number and hence all the multiples of 2 can be expressed as the sum of two prime numbers the least being 4

[@chadgrinder2030]

Hello Mahathi b, the proof you provided proves all even numbers can be expressed as a sum of two odd numbers, but not necessarily two prime numbers. But I like seeing such enthusiasm for mathematics, keep up the good work!

[@chadgrinder2030]

To expand on my previous comment... it could be the case that some even number > 2 cannot be expressed as the sum of two prime numbers but the sum of a prime number and a non-prime odd number. If that is the case, Goldbach’s Conjecture would be false

[@deadinsider5960]

I never really understood what is the deal with Goldbach's conjecture. I mean we know that all prime numbers greater then 2 are odd, and the sum of two odd numbers will give you even integer. Wouldn't that prove the Goldbach's conjecture, although it would be for more generalized case?

[@Govtjobswithme123]

The problem is not about whether the sum of two odd is even or not..it's about every even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as sum of 2 prime(not odd)

[@bawol-official]

The general case works until you get to very very large numbers like 400 million trillion+ the conjecture falls apart.

[@rtfacts5317]

Golbach conjecture states that every even integer greater than two can be written as sum of two primes. It has nothing to do with some of odd primes being even

[@shannongfm9945]

All primes greater than two are odd but not all odd numbers are prime.

[@saumilpanchal2044]

It's amaz...

[@timemechanicone]

Solved

[@debrajghale6025]

Actually, what is solved?

[@pavolgalik9764]

I like a problem that hasn't been solved in over two thousand four hundred years more than the Riemann problem. Is there an odd perfect number or not? Pythagoras does not know, Euclid does not know, Archimedes does not know, Christ does not express himself, Muhammad does not express himself, Buddha does not express himself, Newton does not know, Einstein does not know, Riemann does not know, Ramanujan does not know. I hope this problem lasts at least a thousand years, let all the false prophets and sages break their teeth on it.

[@shruggzdastr8-facedclown]

I wonder if any mathematician(s) has/have studied the distribution of positive composite numbers that are abundant with respect to having multiple pairs of primes that sum up to them vs. ones that only have one or two such pairs? In order to offset the bias towards positive integers which can be divided by multiple powers of 2, I would limit the scope to positive integers which are divisible by only one power of 2 (e.g.: n|2^1)

[@mariasenglishlearning3893]

There is a very interesting recent research book that have miraculously answered almost all the questions concerning Prime numbers, it is available on Amazon by the name of: THE FORMULAS OF NONPRIMES REVEALING ALL THE PRIME NUMBERS

[@loneranger4282]

Go away bot.

[@debrajghale6025]

In my think, before the solving of this problem, We must find out their pattern. I'm working as same way.

[@sourasishmukherjee637]

Sir , as we all know that a prime number >2 can be written as either 4n+1 or 4n+3 and for any combination of these we'll always get an even number ... then what's the problem is with Goldbach's conjecture? ?

[@x_gosie]

Adding even and odd, number will always result in an odd number.

[@rosiefay7283]

The problem is to prove that every even number >4 can be obtained this way (prove Goldbach's conjecture) or prove that there is at least one even number >4 that can't (refute it).