20090517, 11:04  #1 
Feb 2007
11010011_{2} Posts 
A prime finding formula. what do you think?
http://recursed.blogspot.com/2008/07...findsnew.html
Rutgers Graduate Student Finds New PrimeGenerating Formula Read the article + comments. 
20090517, 11:10  #2  
Banned
"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia
4,813 Posts 
Quote:


20090517, 16:56  #3 
Aug 2006
5985_{10} Posts 
There are way too many commenters there who (1) think that this method can ever be efficient at generating primes, and (2) think far too highly of Wolfram.

20090517, 22:26  #4 
Aug 2004
Melbourne, Australia
10011000_{2} Posts 
Cute result. Although, I don't really understand why there's a discussion on the Riemann hypothesis, etc. Rowland writes: ``the primality of p is being established essentially by trial division'' and ``It's not a magical generator of large primes'.'
The sequence it generates is Sloane's A132199. Here it is without the 1s. 
20090518, 05:44  #5  
Dec 2008
7^{2}·17 Posts 
Quote:
Besides, a simple primegenerating formula such as this one does not deserve nearly the amount of attention it has received. Those are my two cents.... Last fiddled with by flouran on 20090518 at 05:45 

20090518, 06:05  #6  
Aug 2004
Melbourne, Australia
2^{3}×19 Posts 
Quote:
In this case, it's definitely not the author's fault that the theorem's value has been misinterpreted. 

20090518, 06:09  #7  
Dec 2008
7^{2}·17 Posts 
Quote:
Nonetheless, you make a good point. However, I still think the result is too trivial to be published....but that's my opinion, and I think I'm entitled to it. 

20090518, 08:10  #8 
Aug 2004
Melbourne, Australia
2^{3}·19 Posts 
Indeed. It's an interesting topic as to what constitutes a paper. I've seen lots of papers with a lot less material than this one.
I find that good quality mathematicians don't have too much time to publish minor results (even though they may be of some importance somehow). 
20090518, 09:03  #9 
Undefined
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair
2^{2}×5×307 Posts 
I am inclined to agree with flouran here. The trivial result is really not worth so much effort to publish in such a big way. All it needed was a small mention somewhere and anyone interested in prime formulas could easy search for them and find it.

20090518, 17:21  #10 
Nov 2008
2·3^{3}·43 Posts 
I also agree with flouran. There are other primefinding formulae out there, and this is just one more. And it is not an easy way to find a 100 million digit (nonMersenne) prime. What would be nice is a fast algorithm that produced primes which got progressively larger with each iteration, so that you were quickly into the 100s of millions of digits. On second thoughts, though, it wouldn't be good, because that would mean the end of GIMPS.

20090518, 21:55  #11 
Aug 2004
Melbourne, Australia
10011000_{2} Posts 
Things are a bit difficult when you're a student  there's a lot of pressure to get publications and citations (which these cutesypoo papers tend to receive). By the looks of things, he's already achieved that: [1] Benoit Cloitre, Beyond Rowlandâ€™s gcd sequence, in preparation.
At some point he might be looking for a research career and might consequently have one more publication. 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
probabilty of finding a mersenne prime  wildrabbitt  Information & Answers  3  20141219 20:50 
prime formula  meeztamike  Miscellaneous Math  11  20100718 04:13 
Will prime finding become easier?  jasong  Math  5  20071225 05:08 
formula for largest prime found  debasish  Miscellaneous Math  20  20070928 03:48 
prime number formula  tjmag  Miscellaneous Math  6  20031211 20:21 