20080822, 15:00  #34  
Nov 2006
Singapore
3×5^{2} Posts 
Quote:
The OPs original query may have been poorly phrased but it does have its merits. For example while there are only 3 known Wilson Primes it has been conjectured that infinitely many exist. He only seemed to be asking if he has missed any from his list. Quote:
I am not certain where the 'occurs with probability 1' comes in. 

20080822, 15:10  #35  
Nov 2003
2^{2}×5×373 Posts 
Quote:
need not contain ALL elements. I did not say "certain" because it too would be incorrect. A probability subspace can have measure 1, yet not contain ALL elements of its parent. And where in hell did I ever say that a set has to be finite to have density 0??? And your ignorance clearly shows in your lack of understanding of the relevance of "probability 1". Once again, GO STUDY SOME MEASURE THEORY. 

20080822, 17:23  #36 
Feb 2008
2^{5} Posts 
Sorry
I am sorry that I overreacted to the first reply to my post, I mistakenly thought he was being sarcastic.
I did not intend to start a flame war. I am sorry I lack the mathemtical knowledge RDS demands of everyone. Although I lack mathematical knowledge, I am very curious about prime numbers. I will try to improve my future posts. RDS, please do not waste your time reading my future posts; they will probably not meet your criteria. If you do not read them; we both will be happier. Thank you 
20080822, 19:29  #37 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
2×3×13×83 Posts 
Well said Housemouse.

20080822, 21:37  #38  
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA
1111000001100_{2} Posts 
Quote:
If you were in full control of yourself, you could refrain from responding to questions you deem inadequate to meet the standards you espouse. I've pointed out to you that there are other participants who are willing to take the time and effort to respond to those questions in a different manner, so you need not fear that anyone's questions will go unanswered. That you continue to pester folks here in the way you do is a sign that you either have an uncontrolled emotional compulsion to respond, and/or that you use this forum to express anger that would otherwise leak out in other areas of your life. Quote:
Quote:
Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 20080822 at 21:49 

20080822, 22:59  #39  
Cranksta Rap Ayatollah
Jul 2003
641 Posts 
Quote:


20080829, 03:59  #40 
Jun 2003
Oxford, UK
2^{3}·241 Posts 
Oh dear, this has become a sad thread.
I usually score quite highly (crankometer) on many of my questions I pose to this group. I persevere because I quite like recreational maths, and I am always grateful for helpful responses. I like to be enlightened. And some responders are better than others in bringing out the best in me. But I persevere also here because I have a relatively thick skin. I duck and weave the unpleasant. My preference is to receive thoughtful responses that both educate and encourage. I think the forum already has two types of sub groups, and threads usually belong to either one or the other, so there is no real need to change. This is a lively group and there are some great and helpful minds out there. It would be good to keep it that way. 
20080829, 06:47  #41 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
10311_{10} Posts 
Well, it's nice to know I'm not the only one who starts flame wars.
I have an idea. Why doesn't everyone start responding to the question that was originally posed. Even if it's not worded quite the way it is needed for precise mathematics, to me it's clear what the O.P. intended: Find prime forms with few primes but be reasonable about it by not allowing such outlandish forms that they become large very quickly. In other words, don't make it some stupid form that gets large so quickly that while it cannot be proven to never have a prime, it has such a miniscule chance that it is uninteresting for mathematical discussion. RDS, I realize this is still very vague. I'm only stating what it APPEARS that the O.P. intended. I claim no understanding of math higher than high school calculus and freshman level algebra. This appears to be an interesting topic to expound upon. Let's set up some parameters and rules about what constitue an 'interesting rare prime form', i.e. not something stupid like k*2^(n^n^n^n^n^n)1. Then go from there. The O.P. gave us a starting point with some interesting forms. We just need to frame the parameters for 'rare primes' of other forms. Gary 
20080829, 10:04  #42  
Nov 2003
2^{2}×5×373 Posts 
Quote:
No matter how many times I say it, the message does not appear to get through to some people. It does not take knowledge of ANY advanced mathematics to see that you are spouting VAGUE GIBBERRISH. It isn't math, it is NONSENSE. Without a definition of the terminology involved, what you say is MEANINGLESS. What does "be reasonable about it" mean? What does "outlandish" mean? What does "stupid form" mean? What does "uninteresting" mean in this context. And who is the audience? Wannabees? Cranks? Or real mathematicians??? The O.P. did not ask a question that CAN be answered in any meaningful way. 

20080829, 12:40  #43 
Feb 2008
20_{16} Posts 
I am not a mathematician. I only had 3 years of high school math. But I am curious. I defined what I meant by "rare" for the purpose of this thread.
Is it so easy, as to be trival, to construct formulas that you can prove will result in exactly 1 prime, 2 primes etc. up to 10? 
20080829, 12:47  #44 
Jun 2003
The Texas Hill Country
3^{2}·11^{2} Posts 
Yes! It is trivial to create a function that will generate any finite number of values. By selecting a set of prime values to be generated, the resulting formula will meet your criterion.

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Is CEMPLLA 1.5 "the only software in the world capable of discovering" something? Not really.  CRGreathouse  Number Theory Discussion Group  51  20181216 21:55 
AouessareEl HaddouchiEssaaidi "test": "if Mp has no factor, it is prime!"  wildrabbitt  Miscellaneous Math  11  20150306 08:17 
Palindrome primes (a.k.a. Elementary S03E03 "Just a Regular Irregular")  Batalov  And now for something completely different  12  20141116 19:03 
PrimeRelated History: Leibniz' "Universal Language Based on Primes"  ewmayer  Math  10  20070302 12:47 
Would Minimizing "iterations between results file" may reveal "is not prime" earlier?  nitai1999  Software  7  20040826 18:12 