Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Prime Generalization Conjecture
Replies: 48   Last Post: Nov 7, 2017 5:14 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Guest
Re: Prime Generalization Conjecture
Posted: Jun 27, 2009 8:03 AM

Musatov wrote:
Musatov wrote:
Musatov wrote:
Musatov wrote: Richard Heathfield wrote:
Musatov said:
On Jun 26, 1:20 pm, John H. Guillory <jo...@communicomm.com>
wrote:
<snip>
So would that make 3.25 a prime number? A decimal number is not by
classical definition prime.
Numbers aren't decimal. They're numbers. Decimal is a system for
/representing/ numbers textually.

Though if
you have an idea of a decimal equivalent of primality, I would
love to hear it.

It's a meaningless concept. Primality has nothing to do with
representation.
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk> Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Forged article? See
http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/usenet/comp.lang.c/msgauth.php
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Dear Mr. Heathfield,
I agree with you in the classical proof sense primality is as much
governed by physics as it is counting numbers we choose to represent
quantities.

My intention with this reference is providing a means to interface
between prime numbers to the left of the decimal point and decimal
numbers to the right of the decimal point. Perhaps a system where 3.17
refers to two primes, and this sense I am speaking mostly toward
computation, but again I assert, numbers to the left or right of the
decimal, are still just numbers.

I have always been fascinated by this notion:

Numerically, our representations do not appear uniform instinctually,
to me at least.

Here is an example.
If we say, "What 10 is to 20 is not what 2.2 is to 3.3," is there any
truth in proportion to justify this assertion in physics or
mathematics?

We are simply counting.

10 is to 20
...is...
20 is 2x 10
2.2 is to 3.3
...is...
3.3 is 1.5x 2.2
...or...
1/2 of 2.2+2.2=3.3
...or...
1/2 of 2.2=1.1*3=3.33

1 and 1/2 of 2.2=3.3
...or...
1.5 of 2.2=3.3
So there is a split of

1/2+2/5+3/5=15/10
.5+.4+.6=1.5

...And...

1/2*2/5*3/5=x
x=5/10*4/10*6/10=120/10=1.2

.5*.4*.6=1.2

Theorem: use of a set of given quantities.

Rule: adding the set produces at least the product.

Proof(1a): 1 apple + 2 apples + 3 apples=6 apples.

Proof(1b):1 apple * 2 apples * 3 apples=6 apples.

Proof(2a): 5 apples + 4 apples + 6 apples =15 apples.

Proof(2b): 5 apples * 4 apples * 6 apples=120 apples.

Contradiction: in the above example the sum=1.5 and the product=1.2.

Fallacy: Multiplying quantities of items does not shrink them. This
applies to measurements and transforms.

But as we count from 1 to 2 and then 2 to 3

10/1.1 = 9.0909091
20/2.2 = 9.0909091
30/3.3 = 9.0909091

What 1
...is to...
10
...is...
What 2.2 is 22

Proof: 1.1/10=.11
2.2/20=.1
2.2/22=.11
Martin Musatov

Date Subject Author
6/20/09 MeAmI.org
6/20/09 Richard Heathfield
6/20/09 CBFalconer
6/21/09 Richard Heathfield
6/26/09 MeAmI.org
6/26/09 John H. Guillory
6/26/09 Guest
6/26/09 Richard Heathfield
6/27/09 Guest
6/27/09 Guest
6/27/09 Guest
6/29/09 Peter Nilsson
6/30/09 Guest
6/30/09 Alf P. Steinbach
6/30/09 Richard Heathfield
6/30/09 Guest
6/30/09 Dik T. Winter
6/30/09 Richard Heathfield
6/30/09 Guest
6/30/09 Richard Heathfield
6/30/09 mike
6/30/09 Richard Heathfield
6/30/09 Guest
9/13/13
9/13/13
7/7/09 Constructive Truth
7/8/09 Alan Morgan
9/13/13
7/8/09 Guest
7/8/09 Guest
7/8/09 mike
7/8/09 Constructive Truth
7/8/09 Constructive Truth
7/12/09 mike
7/13/09 Guest
7/15/09 Guest
8/24/09 Guest
8/24/09 Guest
6/30/09 Guest
6/30/09 Ed Prochak
11/7/17 4musatov@gmail.com
6/20/09 William Elliot
6/20/09 Guest
6/20/09 Guest
6/20/09 Guest
6/20/09 Guest
6/20/09 Guest
2/8/14
9/13/13