Is it possible that primes have no relevant significance at all?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham's_number
twitter.com/AnonBabble

What do you mean, it took a prime to save Cybertron from Unicron and beat Galvatron

What is RSA encryption?

any number past 200^100 is irrelevant to any human to every exist. This is something that many mathematicians still fail to grasp.

They don't have any significance. The obsession with "muh numbers that have only 2 natural factors" is literal autism. It's an arbitrary property as a result of how we define "one."

Cavemen defined "one" on the basis of "one finger." But let's pretend they were more communal, and defined "one" on the basis of the family instead of the fingers, meaning 1 = a man, his mate, his eldest child, and his next child, meaning "one" is what we would call "four" Just a man, or just a finger, would be expressed by them as a/1, an additional member of the family b/1, c/1, etc. Now, while math as we know it still works, the entire structure and framework of primes falls apart.

...

>can't wrap his brainlet brain around philosophical alternate origins of mathematics

It's like you're so insecure because all you're good at is "muh number theory" that you're afraid of questioning it's foundations, that if it crumbles you will have nothing left.

It's pathetic virgin autists like you that hold math and science back. Maybe you should become a minister instead. Then people would actually like you. It's easier to get money selling antiquated ideas than begging for donations for your p-adic analysis conjecture that no one gives a fuck about, too.

kill yourself

...

Cope, insecure brainlet.

If we change the structure as you say then we would indeed change the primes.

2 would be prime, 3 would be prime, 4 would be composite, 5 would be prime, 6 would be prime, 7 would be prime, 8 would be composite, etc.

But that is still studying the same concept of divisibility and these primes would be even more random given that 1*1 = 4 so now there is no identity, meaning that we are no longer studying a ring but one of those weird unfinished aborted creatures that lack some axioms.

1*1 would equal 1 under that system.
What we would call "1/4" would be 1.

They are significant because we have an operation that is multiplication, and because when you have a means of composing things, it's only natural to ask what the indecomposables are, whether everything is composed of indecomposables and how. Now in the case of numbers, it's easy to understand how numbers are built from primes but the structure of the set of primes is mysterious, which is why people were first interested in it.
Second of all, it turns out that finding the prime factors of a number is computationally difficult, which is why they are cryptographically interesting.
Now, if you're neither interested in number theory, nor cryptography, then they're indeed unlikely to be of any interest to you.

I'm pretty sure you can't just arbitrarily redefine the multiplicative identity.

>The evolutionary strategy used by cicadas of the genus Magicicada make use of prime numbers. These insects spend most of their lives as grubs underground. They only pupate and then emerge from their burrows after 7, 13 or 17 years, at which point they fly about, breed, and then die after a few weeks at most. The logic for this is believed to be that the prime number intervals between emergences make it very difficult for predators to evolve that could specialize as predators on Magicicadas. If Magicicadas appeared at a non-prime number intervals, say every 12 years, then predators appearing every 2, 3, 4, 6, or 12 years would be sure to meet them. Over a 200-year period, average predator populations during hypothetical outbreaks of 14- and 15-year cicadas would be up to 2% higher than during outbreaks of 13- and 17-year cicadas. Though small, this advantage appears to have been enough to drive natural selection in favour of a prime-numbered life-cycle for these insects.

>pi is expressible by the primes

Take the set of all primes. If the prime is one less than a multiple of 4, subtract its reciprocal from 1. Otherwise, add its reciprocal to 1. The product of all of these terms is equal to 3/pi.

(1+1/2)(1-1/3)(1+1/5)(1-1/7)(1-1/11)(1+1/13)(1+1/17)(1-1/19)... = 3/π

That's fucking rad if it isn't just speculative bulllshiy, which it probably is.

The prime-numbered cycles are what classify them in the Magicicada genus, a genus also known as the "periodical cicada." Their prime-numbered patterns are well-documented, but the reason why they have prime-numbered patterns are the source of speculation.

Basically, we know that they DO use prime numbers, but the evolutionary trend stated to be behind that specific trait is just a hypothesis.

Of course they matter; schemes are a thing.

Is it possible that OP's life has no significance at all?

I kek'd

The primes are arbitrary. If we used a different number base than 10 they would all be different.

I'm not. Anything less than what you would call 4 of something is less than 1

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham's_number

I take the bait: No they wouldn't.

Yes they would... For example take a prime like 59, in base 3 that's 2012 (2*27 + 0*9 + 1*3 + 2*1)
but 2012 is clearly even so it can't be a prime.

They are still the same number, it doesn't matter how you write them.

Okay, let's take another example. See attached.

You know how to multiply in other bases, right?

>57
>prime
100% bait

fuck off

ok tell me what step i did wrong in the multiplication

It was prime bait, though.

3*19 for those who took the b8

>kill yourself
>that's bait
>fuck off
Wow, you really showed him. You must be so smart!

Prime numbers are used in encryption. Now shut the fuck up and delete your shitty bait thread.

It's like Graham was trying to create a totally useless piece of math solely to use a big number.

>what is the grothendieck prime