Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 10:42:00 UTC No. 16447001

Besides the fact that they have the property that every number has a unique factorization of them as factors..?

Honestly can't think of anything. I mean everything else would just be derivative

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 10:49:22 UTC No. 16447014

>>16446959
Despite their basic definition that a child can understand, they have a ridiculously complicated pattern that requires complex analysis to understand.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 11:08:08 UTC No. 16447034

Despite the simplistic definition, no one has found a satisfying pattern in their distribution. After thousands of years the best we have is "They're basically random, but we can't even prove that" This pushes autists to the edges of insanity.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 12:10:24 UTC No. 16447082

>>16447034
QM autists would accept it tho

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 15:16:56 UTC No. 16447267

>>16446959
because if you "solve" primes, you break all modern cybersecurity and can hack any password

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 15:52:20 UTC No. 16447312

>>16447267
If you can quickly factor an integer you can break some PKE algorithms. But most are based on discrete log now.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 17:37:11 UTC No. 16447568

>>16446959
fun fact:
they are not.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 18:31:54 UTC No. 16447639

>>16447568
There seems to be some pattern in the lengths of the steps.

There seems to be long horizontals that roughly match, medium horizontals roughly match in length, short horizontals, and those short verticals look similar size

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 18:36:10 UTC No. 16447650

>>16447568
>they are not interesting
>explicit formula assumes the Riemann hypothesis
>still unsolved and has a 1mln$ prize for it

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 18:41:21 UTC No. 16447665

>>16446959
because this

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 19:15:29 UTC No. 16447717

>>16447665
Is it a matter of proportions.

Do you just now realize what the base in base 10 or base 11 or base 2 refers to if I think of balls or brick as the base of a structure

●●●●●●●●●●

Stacking problem.
Stack a tower with a base of n balls, r balls high

And then see all the groupings of organization you can make out of different stacks of different quantities?

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 19:16:40 UTC No. 16447719

>>16447717
>you*
I

🗑️ EBOK at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 19:19:19 UTC No. 16447721

Fags

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 19:20:02 UTC No. 16447722

>>16447568
Looking at this graph there seems to be more elements of a pattern than less.

The graph ends at 100.

Imagine we extend it to 200.
300.
400.
1000.

Safe to assume we can predict ballparks of where the stepping line might pass through

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 19:33:37 UTC No. 16447739

>>16446959
Sphenic numbers are much more interesting and difficult to work with but only because prime numbers are so banal. So in a sense, yes, prime numbers are sort of an easy compost pile of shit that other more intersting things can grow from.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 19:40:05 UTC No. 16447753

Also 4 is essentially a prime number, 4 and 3 are both very low quality primes, and 2 is neglible. Nothing really matters until you have a prime >= 5

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 00:39:12 UTC No. 16448092

>>16447753
Ok Terrence

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 00:54:20 UTC No. 16448117

>>16447650
>explicit formula assumes the Riemann hypothesis
The explicit formula just depends on zeros of the Riemann zeta function wherever they may be. It doesn't need to assume anything about them.

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 01:31:32 UTC No. 16448162

>>16446959
Same reason prime ass is so tempting

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 07:11:37 UTC No. 16448532

>>16446959
Sorry, but we have oceans of formulas for prime numbers. They've already been solved many times.

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 10:08:42 UTC No. 16448677

>>16448532
>oceans
name 1
>riemann cope doesn't count

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 10:13:37 UTC No. 16448682

>>16448677
Sieve of Eratosthenes

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 10:20:47 UTC No. 16448688

>>16448682
>cope of Eratosthenes
>write out all numbers and cross out the composites as you find them
>calling this a formula

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 10:28:14 UTC No. 16448700

>>16448682
that’s not a formula but an algorithm. A very crude algorithm at that too. Plenty of better runtime algorithms exist.

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 19:14:26 UTC No. 16449371

Because they are fundamental

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 19:35:31 UTC No. 16449401

>>16446959
Composite numbers are RECTANGLES!!!
Primes are NOT rectangles! Draw diagrams, go back to geometry. AI can probably understand the pattern as a function of rows and columns where you start with a square like 2x2 of marbles then add on, there’s leftover marble for 5 so it’s prime, you can keep doing this but sometimes you can rearrange it to form a rectangle

Garrote at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:52:39 UTC No. 16449932

>>16449371
if they are so fundamental, then why are they so interesting?

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:53:23 UTC No. 16449933

>>16447082
no they wouldn't, QM autists can't stand it and keep looking for hidden variables

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 07:11:48 UTC No. 16450149

>>16447001
they're almost completely random but they're also not random because their definition is extremely simple