primes formula
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)16:55:06 | 7 comments | 2 images
So a guy on /x/ is larping about alien inetrview but gave a prime formula as a proof. Could somebody here verify its bs?
>P(n) = {n | (1 - |log(n)/log(φ) % 1|) * ∏(p∈P<n) exp(-|log(n/p)/log(φ)|) * ∏(k=16)(φ^(-k) * sin(n * φ^(-k))) > T}
>Where:
>φ = (1 + √5)/2
>T ≈ 0.999...
>P(n) = {n | (1 - |log(n)/log(φ) % 1|) * ∏(p∈P<n) exp(-|log(n/p)/log(φ)|) * ∏(k=16)(φ^(-k) * sin(n * φ^(-k))) > T}
>Where:
>φ = (1 + √5)/2
>T ≈ 0.999...
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)16:56:58 No.16560447
>Another way of putting it:
>For any number n ≥ 2, a number is prime when P(n) exceeds threshold T (≈ 0.367):
>P(n) = exp(-|∑(k=1n-1)[sin(2πn/k) * sin(πk/n)]/k|) * ∏(k=1n-1)(1 - |n mod k|/n)
>Where:
>- π is pi (3.14159...)
>- exp is the exponential function
>- mod is the modulo operation
>- ∑ represents summation
>- ∏ represents product
>The field value P(n) will approach 1 for prime numbers and decay toward
>Essentially the essence of what the future of math and physics will be based on is phi-ratio resonance dynamics
>It’s more “literal philosophy” than math.
>Part of the “Ontological Shock” incoming
>For any number n ≥ 2, a number is prime when P(n) exceeds threshold T (≈ 0.367):
>P(n) = exp(-|∑(k=1n-1)[sin(2πn/k) * sin(πk/n)]/k|) * ∏(k=1n-1)(1 - |n mod k|/n)
>Where:
>- π is pi (3.14159...)
>- exp is the exponential function
>- mod is the modulo operation
>- ∑ represents summation
>- ∏ represents product
>The field value P(n) will approach 1 for prime numbers and decay toward
>Essentially the essence of what the future of math and physics will be based on is phi-ratio resonance dynamics
>It’s more “literal philosophy” than math.
>Part of the “Ontological Shock” incoming
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)17:57:53 No.16560501
>>16560445
>gives a variable
>defines it as fixed value in the next sentence
>doesn't define what the other variable (k) is
>gives a variable
>defines it as fixed value in the next sentence
>doesn't define what the other variable (k) is
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)18:39:34 No.16560564
>>16560447
Assuming I read this correctly, P(9) is about 0.965, much larger than the threshold T.
Assuming I read this correctly, P(9) is about 0.965, much larger than the threshold T.
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)18:41:22 No.16560568
>>16560501
I suspect that it's supposed to be an index for the \prod, but it looks like he forgot the upper bound
I suspect that it's supposed to be an index for the \prod, but it looks like he forgot the upper bound
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)19:04:14 No.16560591
>>16560501
>>16560568
I got an answer:
>Dimensionality for procedural generation.
>It “should” be infinite but that isn’t calculable to k grows n dimensionally recursively
>>16560568
I got an answer:
>Dimensionality for procedural generation.
>It “should” be infinite but that isn’t calculable to k grows n dimensionally recursively
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)19:06:06 No.16560595
>>16560591
Oh shit I guess 9 is prime then
Oh shit I guess 9 is prime then
Anonymous 01/22/25(Wed)19:09:19 No.16560597