100% Primes--While U Wait

By -
OK, let's use the magic formula f(x) = 2x+1 to make primes:

(1) 2 is prime.
(2) 2·2+1 = 5 is prime.
(3) 2·5+1 = 11 is prime.
(4) 2·11+1 = 23 is prime--we're on a roll!
(5) 2·23+1 = 47 is prime!
(6) 2·47+1 = 95 ooops.

This gives 2 an index of 5; also, it gives 5 an index of 4, 11 an index of 3, 23 an index of 2, and 47 an index of 1.

Here's the head of the list of indices of 1, 2, ... 05204010003010001010002...

I have no idea of its properties, but they must be tricky, since their formulation must include formulating primality. Fully characterizing this sequence I should characterize as a problem of very difficult character. Have at it, my faithful legions!

Note that this protocol for framing numerical investigations can be specified for any f(x) and any propositional schema (here, "is prime").

Frame on!

Comments

  1. Andy12:13 PM

    Should it not be 3520401... ? Anyhow, I computed the first 9999 values, and 89 makes an excellent showing with a value of 6. Here are the results:
    0: 8769
    1: 1039
    2: 149
    3: 31
    4: 8
    5: 2
    6: 1

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wabulon10:27 PM

    Andy, we have stood each other. Your repeat is (certainly interesting enough in its own) not the same as mine.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Andy1:16 AM

    My values tabulated above are frequencies. e.g. if I took your example 05204010003010001010002 I'd get
    0: 14
    1: 4
    2: 2
    3: 1
    4: 1
    5: 1

    I just ran 9999 values instead of 23. I still think, if I 'stand it right,
    1: 1, 3, 5, 15... index = 3

    ReplyDelete
  4. Andy4:10 PM

    Make that 1: 1, 3, 7, 15, still index=3

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wabulon12:21 AM

      Andy, my mistake! As to the first digit of the index sequence, I waffled, but went with the doctrinaire version where 1 is not a prime.

      Delete
  5. Andy1:55 AM

    Ah, got it.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more