A bit of rearrangement and some elementary bounds yields so. On the other hand, the estimate is the Prime Number Theorem, whose proof was a major triumph of nineteenth century mathematics. This post is about a heuristic I found a while ago to separate the two: Would the given asymptotic still hold if primes hated to have first digit nine?
Acknowledgements: Much of this appeared earlier in an answer I left on MO. There are no primes between and , for large. There are primes between and for and and not too close together.
This would not be consistent with the Prime Number Theorem. PNT gives and so which goes to as. So the proposed conspiracy is very inconsistent with the PNT, and any asymptotic property of primes which is strong enough to imply PNT should violate the conspiracy. But is perfectly compatible with this conspiracy. Let's see that the conspiracy is consistent with 1 : For of the form , the sum would be For , the sum would be equal to the same quantity, because there are no additional terms between and , so we also have.
So and. This article was reprinted on Wired. Get highlights of the most important news delivered to your email inbox. Quanta Magazine moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation.
Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours New York time and can only accept comments written in English.
We care about your data, and we'd like to use cookies to give you a smooth browsing experience. Please agree and read more about our privacy policy. Read Later. A previously unnoticed property of prime numbers seems to violate a long-standing assumption about how they behave.
The Quanta Newsletter Get highlights of the most important news delivered to your email inbox. But the number N leaves a remainder of one when divided by any of the prime numbers on our list 2, 3, 5, 7,…, 23, This is supposed to be a complete list of our primes, but none of them divides N.
So, the prime factors of N are not on that list and, in particular, there must be new prime numbers beyond Have you found all the prime numbers smaller than ?
Which method did you use? Did you check each number individually, to see if it is divisible by smaller numbers? If this is the way you chose, you definitely invested a lot of time. Eratosthenes Figure 1 , one of the greatest scholars of the Hellenistic period, lived a few decades after Euclid.
He served as the chief librarian in the library of Alexandria , the first library in history and the biggest in the ancient world. Among other things, he designed a clever way to find all the prime numbers up to a given number. Since this method is based on the idea of sieving sifting the composite numbers, it is called the Sieve of Eratosthenes. We will demonstrate the sieve of Eratosthenes on the list of prime numbers smaller than , which is hopefully still in front of you Figure 2.
Circle the number 2, since it is the first prime number, and then erase all its higher multiples, namely all the composite even numbers. Move on to the next non-erased number, the number 3. Since it was not erased, it is not a product of smaller numbers, and we can circle it knowing that it is prime. Again, erase all its higher multiples. Notice that some of them, such as 6, have been already deleted, while others, such as 9, will be erased now.
The next non-erased number—5—will be circled. Again, erase all its higher multiples: 10, 15, and 20 have already been deleted, but 25 and 35, for instance, should be erased now. Continue in the same manner. Until when? All numbers smaller than that were not erased are prime numbers and can be safely circled!
What is the frequency of prime numbers? How many prime numbers are there, approximately, between 1,, and 1,, one million and one million plus one thousand and how many between 1,,, and 1,,, one billion and one billion plus one thousand?
Can we estimate the number of prime numbers between one trillion 1,,,, and one trillion plus one thousand? Calculations reveal that prime numbers become more and more rare as numbers get larger. But is it possible to state an accurate theorem that will express exactly how rare they are?
Such a theorem was first stated as a conjecture by the great mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss in , at the age of The nineteenth-century mathematician Bernhard Riemann Figure 1 , who influenced the study of prime numbers in modern times more than anyone else, developed further tools needed to deal with it. But a formal proof of the theorem was given only in , a century after it had been stated. It is interesting to note that both men were born around the time of the death of Riemann.
The precise formulation of the prime number theorem, even more so the details of its proof, require advanced mathematics that we cannot discuss here. But put less precisely, the prime number theorem states that the frequency of prime numbers around x is inversely proportional to the number of digits in x.
Their properties have baffled number theorists for centuries, but mathematicians have usually felt safe working on the assumption they could treat primes as if they occur randomly. Now, however, Kannan Soundararajan and Robert Lemke Oliver of Stanford University in the US have discovered that when it comes to the last digit of prime numbers, there is a kind of pattern. Each of the four possibilities — 1, 3, 7, or 9 — should have an equal 25 per cent one in four chance of appearing at the end of the next prime number.
A prime ending in 1 was followed by a prime ending in 1 only And, the pair found, primes ending in 3 tended be followed by primes ending in 9 more often than in 1 or 7.
0コメント