Is the Riemann Hypothesis true?

[Profpointy]

how about the physisist's proof that all odd numbers are prime?

3's prime, 5's prime, 7's prime, 9 - well, we'll put that one down to experimental error, 11's prime, what more do you want ?

 

[Red Light]

how about the physisist's proof that all odd numbers are prime?

3's prime, 5's prime, 7's prime, 9 - well, we'll put that one down to experimental error, 11's prime, what more do you want ?

And I can extend that proof by adding that 1 and 13 are also primes.

 

[Thomk]

And I can extend that proof by adding that 1 and 13 are also primes.

You are on right dodgy ground here. One - a prime number

 

[Archie_tect]

Why isn't 2 a prime number since it isn't ivisible by any other numbers except 1 and itself?

 

[Thomk]

Why isn't 2 a prime number since it isn't ivisible by any other numbers except 1 and itself?

It pretty much is.

 

[Red Light]

You are on right dodgy ground here. One - a prime number

Close enough for a physicist ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number#Primality_of_one

 

[Thomk]

Close enough for a physicist ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number#Primality_of_one

Says it all
BTW, the definition these days is that a prime number is a positive integer with exactly one divisor other than one (slyly excluding 1 - good job since it's a pain in the rear if you treat it as a prime).

 

[Red Light]

BTW, the definition these days is .......

Just a passing fad ;-)

 

[Andy_R]

And I can extend that proof by adding that 1 and 13 are also primes.

A prime number has to be only divisible by 1 and itself. 1 is not therefore a prime numer, cos it is only divisible by 1 and itself which also happens to be 1, so it's only divisible by 1. So there!

 

[Red Light]

A prime number has to be only divisible by 1 and itself. 1 is not therefore a prime numer, cos it is only divisible by 1 and itself which also happens to be 1, so it's only divisible by 1. So there!

By some definitions of a prime number, yes, but not by all definitions. So there back with knobs on

 

[srw]

region of numbers so far away that it is beyond imagination - exp(3.21×1064).

I think you mean exp (3.21 x 10^64). The number you mention is only of the order of 10^1483 according to my calculator.

 

[marinyork]

I think you mean exp (3.21 x 10^64). The number you mention is only of the order of 10^1483 according to my calculator.

Quite. He probably wrote it out the the proper way, it's just this website doesn't support it.

exp(3.21x1064) displays perfectly well until I actually press preview and post and then it comes out as 1064 instead.

edit: Which is somewhat odd in some ways, because I can write up arrow notation fine e.g. 4↑↑3 and of course it displays fine.

 

[Thomk]

Quite. He probably wrote it out the the proper way, it's just this website doesn't support it.

exp(3.21x1064) displays perfectly well until I actually press preview and post and then it comes out as 1064 instead.

edit: Which is somewhat odd in some ways, because I can write up arrow notation fine e.g. 4↑↑3 and of course it displays fine.

Quite right

 

[ASC1951]

Anyone who wants to know more about theoretical mathematics in general, and this problem in particular, should watch Marcus du Sautoy's programme on BBC4 on Easter Monday evening.

Even as a linguist/arts person I find him very watchable. I wouldn't understand the maths anyway, but he does an excellent job of explaining what the problem is and why it does matter.

 

[Thomk]

Anyone who wants to know more about theoretical mathematics in general, and this problem in particular, should watch Marcus du Sautoy's programme on BBC4 on Easter Monday evening.

Even as a linguist/arts person I find him very watchable. I wouldn't understand the maths anyway, but he does an excellent job of explaining what the problem is and why it does matter.

He's written a popular book on the RH.