Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeJul 1st 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItex[[prime number]]

   prime number

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorIan_Durham
   • CommentTimeJul 1st 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Ian_Durham
   Format: MarkdownItexPrime numbers fascinate me. One of the most interesting observations about prime numbers that I've heard came from author Mark Haddon (who probably got it from someone else). A character in one of his books observed something to the effect that prime numbers are what are left over when you remove all the patterns of numbers.

   Prime numbers fascinate me. One of the most interesting observations about prime numbers that I’ve heard came from author Mark Haddon (who probably got it from someone else). A character in one of his books observed something to the effect that prime numbers are what are left over when you remove all the patterns of numbers.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorJohn Baez
   • CommentTimeJul 6th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: John Baez
   Format: MarkdownItexObnoxious rejoinder: what about this pattern: $0,1,2,3, \dots$? On the other hand, the uncomputable real numbers could really be thought of as the numbers left over when you remove all the numbers that are created using some systematic process.

   Obnoxious rejoinder: what about this pattern: $0,1,2,3, \dots$?

   On the other hand, the uncomputable real numbers could really be thought of as the numbers left over when you remove all the numbers that are created using some systematic process.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeJul 6th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexWhat about [[period]]s ? The main conjecture is fascinating, so simple and natural, and nobody has any clue how to prove it.

   What about periods ? The main conjecture is fascinating, so simple and natural, and nobody has any clue how to prove it.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorIan_Durham
   • CommentTimeJul 6th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Ian_Durham
   Format: Html<blockquote><p>What about periods ? The main conjecture is fascinating, so simple and natural, and nobody has any clue how to prove it.</p></blockquote> Yeah, wow, that's really fascinating. Cool!

   What about periods ? The main conjecture is fascinating, so simple and natural, and nobody has any clue how to prove it.

   
   Yeah, wow, that's really fascinating. Cool!
6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorKevin Lin
   • CommentTimeJul 8th 2010
   • (edited Jul 8th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Kevin Lin
   Format: HtmlIan, I guess you're referring to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes">Sieve of Eratosthenes</a>, known since ancient times. Really it's a rather trivial observation, following almost immediately from the definition of prime numbers.

   Ian, I guess you're referring to the Sieve of Eratosthenes, known since ancient times. Really it's a rather trivial observation, following almost immediately from the definition of prime numbers.
7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorIan_Durham
   • CommentTimeJul 8th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Ian_Durham
   Format: MarkdownItex> Ian, I guess you're referring to the Sieve of Eratosthenes, known since ancient times. No, I assume Mark Haddon was. > Really it's a rather trivial observation, following almost immediately from the definition of prime numbers. That doesn't make it uninteresting.

   Ian, I guess you’re referring to the Sieve of Eratosthenes, known since ancient times.

   No, I assume Mark Haddon was.

   Really it’s a rather trivial observation, following almost immediately from the definition of prime numbers.

   That doesn’t make it uninteresting.