Okay, so once numbers get large enough, there's always a prime between any two consecutive cubes. For any n, there's always a prime number between n^3 and (n + 1)^3, if n is above some threshold
Show this thread
-
So imagine you took *all* the cube roots instead of just one. You get a sequence which goes ∛2 ∛∛11 ∛∛∛1361 ∛∛∛∛2521008887 ...
Show this thread
Or to put it another way 1.25992104989... 1.30529988079... 1.30637788382... 1.30637788386... ... We have essentially proved that this sequence converges to a value, which we'll call A
-
-
This value A has the property that if you cube it, and round down, you get a prime if you cube it twice, and round down, you also get a prime if you cube it three times, and round down, you also get a prime ... In fact ⌊ A^3^n ⌋ is prime for all n > 0
Show this thread -
To repeat for emphasis: there is a real number A such that no matter how many times you cube it, if you round down, you always get a prime! It is called Mills' constant and it is one of the best numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mills%27_constant …
Show this thread -
It is not known for sure that Mills' constant is 1.3063778838630806904686144926... but if the Riemann Hypothesis is true then that's it
Show this thread -
Can we use Mills' constant to generate primes? Nope, other way around, we can use primes to construct Mills' constant
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes, totally. Without a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis we just have to start at a higher prime than 2, specifically the first prime after e^e^34
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.