Part 2 is at: kzread.info/dash/bejne/gKee1a6wibW9aNI.html --- And Grant's own false pattern video at: kzread.info/dash/bejne/amllt5duZ82ceKg.html

@unbelievable961

Жыл бұрын

Sir could you please tell me how and from where I can learn to code a program to check any conjecture or check any pattern in my laptop just like you...∞

@Einyen

Жыл бұрын

Fun fact: The factor 11 does not appear in your list, the first one is for prime: 9011 which is 2030303 = 11 * 379 * 487 in base 4. The factor 101 does not appear until prime 16992067 which is 1000310131003 = 79 * 101 * 125367857 in base 4.

@TheSummoner

Жыл бұрын

Part 3 when? 🥹

@arronviolin

Жыл бұрын

.. can you just release the unedited video of part 3..?

Patrick Paterson and his patented primes were a Parker precursor. He gave it a go, and got pretty close.

@TechSY730

Жыл бұрын

The scam bot got one thing right, that @elflfa does deserve congratulations for this comment. 😆 👍

@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721

Жыл бұрын

"Parker" and "Paterson" both start with "Pa." I conjecture that there is a connection between the two.

@PrimalBeard

Жыл бұрын

I read this in Parker's voice

@gogl0l386

Жыл бұрын

So Matt even Parker Squared, making the concept of a Parker Square. Poor guy it never ends.

@Triantalex

5 ай бұрын

??.

Whenever I see the word "prime" or the name "3blue1brown" in a Numberphile video, I feel the urge to watch immediately, so I dropped everything for this one. The traffic behind me can wait until I'm done.

@numberphile

Жыл бұрын

ha ha

@Isaac-ok3uu

Жыл бұрын

criminally underrated comment

@zzz1001ww

Жыл бұрын

I'm a simple guy, I see 'prime', '3blue1brown' and 'Numberphile', I click :)

@ahmedyawar31

Жыл бұрын

Bro I am waiting behind you 🙁

@yeet3673

Жыл бұрын

@@ahmedyawar31 lol

I will never not be amazed by Grant's seemingly natural understanding of complex patterns in mathematics. And it helps that he is able to calmly and precisely explain it.

@CoyMcBob

Жыл бұрын

What seems natural on video likely took a lot of understanding off camera.

@bsharpmajorscale

Жыл бұрын

His intuition of derivative products and vice versa was a game changer for me.

@motherisape

Жыл бұрын

That's same for every mathematician

@motherisape

Жыл бұрын

@@pomelo9518 they both are same specie

@aceman0000099

Жыл бұрын

Emphasis on calmly

1) If you don't generate the hypothesis then you have no chance of getting a theorem. 2) When you test a hypothesis you will get a deeper understanding. Even while disproving it. 3) and it's fun. Thumbs up to all concerned.

@bluerizlagirl

Жыл бұрын

Indeed. Just the proof that the process generates numbers which are not multiples of 2, 3 or 5 is interesting enough in its own right!

@zeevkeane6280

Жыл бұрын

Exactly, follow the null hypothesis to the end, you will learn, no matter what. That's what science is truly about.

@Triantalex

5 ай бұрын

??.

I love that as an aside Grant explained the rule for finding if a number is divisible by 3 or 9. I've been using that fact for almost two decades and had never thought to ask why it was true.

Makes me think of my 10 years old self, so proud of discovering that the hypothenuse of a 3 and 4 units sided right triangle is 5, and that it works for 6,8 and 10 too.

@word6344

11 ай бұрын

I remember being so proud of myself for finding out that it works for 30, 40, 50, as well as 300, 400, and 500, and 60, 80, 100 and 600, 800, 1000

None of the Paterson composite numbers shown in the video are divisible by 11. For those wondering, the first one is 9,011 -> 2,030,303 = 11 × 379 × 487.

@ChristopheSmet123321

Жыл бұрын

Also, no coincidence that it lasts that long: divisibility by 11 in base 10 can be checked by looking at the alternating sum of the digits. The same happens for divisibility by 5 in base 4. So if the alternating sum in base 10 is zero, then the starting number was divisible by 5. As an example, 231 in base 10 is an 11-fold since 2-3+1=0, in base 4 the number is 32+12+1=45, a 5-fold. So this Paterson method can only give an 11-fold if the alternating sum is an 11-fold, but non-zero. Which takes a while, if you can only use 0, 1, 2 and 3.

@jkid1134

Жыл бұрын

I was absolutely wondering :) I was also wondering if there's a largest Patterson prime, but I suppose no one knows that

@beningram1811

Жыл бұрын

@@jkid1134 I imagine it's very likely that there is no largest Patterson prime. My reasoning is that there's no largest prime, and of those infinitely many primes, some, in base 4, would probably result in a larger prime. Then again, i was surprised by how low a quantity of the first 1000 primes churned out a Patterson prime, so maybe it does continue dwindling.

@mirador698

Жыл бұрын

@@jkid1134 I assume that there are infinitely many Paterson primes.

@aditya95sriram

Жыл бұрын

Thank you kind stranger :)

Some questions that come to mind: - Are there infinitely many "Paterson primes"? (I do think so but can't think of a straightforward way of proving it rn) - How exactly does the ratio between "Paterson primes" and "non-Paterson primes" behave for larger and larger numbers? - Is there a longest consecutive run of "Paterson primes"? So, could it theoretically be all "Paterson primes" after a certain number? If so, from what number on is that? If not (which is probably more likely), what's the longest consecutive run of "Paterson primes" we know of?

@tempestaspraefert

Жыл бұрын

This is some numerical data on the distribution: ("primes below n as input", "number of input primes", "number of output primes", "ratio") 2 0 0 0 4 2 2 1.00000000000000 8 4 4 1.00000000000000 16 6 6 1.00000000000000 32 11 10 0.909090909090909 64 18 15 0.833333333333333 128 31 24 0.774193548387097 256 54 38 0.703703703703704 512 97 58 0.597938144329897 1024 172 97 0.563953488372093 2048 309 157 0.508090614886731 4096 564 244 0.432624113475177 8192 1028 392 0.381322957198444 16384 1900 633 0.333157894736842 32768 3512 1049 0.298690205011390 65536 6542 1788 0.273310914093549 131072 12251 3048 0.248796016651702 262144 23000 5375 0.233695652173913 524288 43390 9506 0.219082737958055 1048576 82025 16920 0.206278573605608 2097152 155611 30351 0.195044052155696 4194304 295947 54939 0.185637968960658 8388608 564163 99811 0.176918727389070 16777216 1077871 182365 0.169190005111929 33554432 2063689 330601 0.160199041619159 67108864 3957809 601667 0.152020221289102 134217728 7603553 1102217 0.144960783465309 268435456 14630843 2035882 0.139150013433949 536870912 28192750 3763838 0.133503755398108

@want-diversecontent3887

Жыл бұрын

I tested all primes between 2 and 100000, and the ratio just seems to keep decreasing. It ended at about 0.3481377, but it doesn't seem like it has a reason to stop there.

@renyhp

Жыл бұрын

I also started thinking similar questions! Commenting to follow this thread

@want-diversecontent3887

Жыл бұрын

I am testing up to a million now, and it has already dropped to about 0.299

@Astromath

Жыл бұрын

@@want-diversecontent3887 Did you try plotting the ratio?

That ending (the first 1,000 primes checked) was therapeutic (although it almost felt like Patrick’s obituary)

Oh hey, look at us breaking into the numberphile "prerelease vault"

@saberxebeck

Жыл бұрын

Are you a time traveler?

@eldhomarkose8330

Жыл бұрын

@@saberxebeck patreon

@fuuryuuSKK

Жыл бұрын

@@eldhomarkose8330 I am in fact not a Patron, I got here via the link at the end of Grant's latest video.

@eldhomarkose8330

Жыл бұрын

@@fuuryuuSKK okay

I'm jealous of Grant for having had friends like that in high school, who could just talk about nerdy math stuff. That's the coolest kind of kid.

After some thought, I've come up with an extension to Paterson Primes. Consider a set of primes {p1,p2...pn} and a small base A. To find a larger base B such that, when you take a prime in base A and interpret it in base B, will not divide any of the primes in the set, B must be subject to the following conditions: if a prime from the set p is larger than A, B=k*p for some natural number k, or in general, A=B (mod p). Let's do a small example. For the set {2,3,5,7}, and starting base 4, B must be a multiple of 2, one more than a multiple of three (which combine to require B is congruent to four mod six), either have a residue of four mod five or be a multiple of five, and either have a residue of four mod seven or be a multiple of seven. The smallest B which satisfies these conditions is 70. Thus, if you write the primes in base four and interpret them as base 70, you can be ensured that the resulting numbers will not be divisible by 2,3,5, or 7, which is neat, but far less elegant than P. Paterson's original result.

This is great! I love seeing my favorite KZreadrs entering each other's worlds. I did notice a typo (others probably did too): at 1:17, the graphic indicates that we are writing 17 in base 4, but the prime in question, as Grant just stated, was 5 (11 in base 4).

@exoplanet11

5 ай бұрын

I noticed that error also and was about to comment.

So much editing for part 3. I bet it's going to be amazing!

A numberphile and a 3b1b video on the same day?! This week can’t get better

I really enjoy the work of 3Blue1Brown. He has a way of explaining things that just intuitively makes sense.

So what's the longest known "Paterson chain" (i.e. repeatedly plugging in the result to get another prime)? Will all chains eventually end?

@numberphile

Жыл бұрын

This is a question that MUST be answered!

@l.3ok

Жыл бұрын

2 and 3 are the longest ones 😅

@themathhatter5290

Жыл бұрын

I feel like it's almost certain all chains will end, because there's no polynomial that can only produce primes, and I don't think any recurrence formula could either. I have a feeling the longest chain could be six, if the remainders cycle mod 7.

@ragnkja

Жыл бұрын

@@l.3ok 2 and 3 are loops, not chains.

@Jisatsu

Жыл бұрын

5 is actually pretty long: 5 -> 11 -> 23 -> 113 -> 1301 -> 110111, 6 steps I'm curious if there is a 7 step number or if all other numbers are tied or below

Grant's eloquence and conveyance of mathematical principles is near unmatched.

5:00 I've used the "add the digits" trick to check for divisibility by 3 for years...but never knew why it worked.

Bonus Numberphile video with 3b1b?!?😍😍

Waited for this collab for ages.

Grant is simply amazing at explaining things and Brady (almost) always asks the right questions - Love this video, wish I could upvote it more than once!

The add-the-digits test for divisibility by 3 was my first experience of discovering a proof of a result. It was a bonus exercise my older sister had been set in school. Addictive experience.

Thinking about patterns I always think about density and if there’s anything to learn for it, like if there’s a point where you run out of primes by using this method or if there are infinite Patterson primes and they just get more and more sparse, also if there’s a relation between the distance between primes and if different bases affect the spread, etc.

Grant crushes the math problems with his biceps

The 3Blue1Brown channel dropped a new video only a couple of hours ago and now we get THIS TOO today??? Christmas came early!

gosh, that would be pretty cool if i had a math friend like paterson back in school

I love 3Blue1Brown ❤

I like thinking about other bases. Great video, as always.

Numberphile teaming up with 3Blue1Brown forms a kind of nerd supergroup. Good for everyone!

1:15 Whoops! Editing mistake.

This begs these questions though: What is the longest string of Patterson Primes? (A string being a prime number goes in, and a prime number comes out as the seed for the next Patterson Prime) Does it happen in the low numbers? Does it exist in the 'big' numbers? Is there an infinitely long string of them? are there an arbitrarily infinite number of infinite Patterson Prime strings?

This was so much fun!

That was a really fun video. Very relatable.

Would be interesting to see whats the longest recursive chain of paterson primes you can generate.

@jonathansperry7974

Жыл бұрын

Aside from the trivial infinite chains (primes less than 4), I have the same question.

@jonathansperry7974

Жыл бұрын

The longest I've found so far start with 5, 29, and 73. These end at 1301, 200133233 and 10301133301033, respectively. I've checked all the starting primes below 2500. Update: Checking the other comments, chains with one more number (but maybe not two) exist. But the smallest starts with a 9-digit prime, so I'm done.

A reasonable conjecture would be: given any m>n positive, there exists a prime p such that the n-ary expression of p interpreted as m-ary, is not a prime.

Brady and Grant collaborating again: great! 👏🏻

This is absolutely astounding! I have been working on a very similar version of this for several weeks now. Except it's much bigger in scope. I am fairly certain I know why 31 fails. I have been studying what I call zones of Naomi. A KZread comment is a touch too small to go into detail. My current record prime found is over 12k digits in length and it looks very cool indeed. I suppose it's about time for me to start making videos.

@mcbot6291

Жыл бұрын

Sounds cool! Definitely make a video

i actually discovered this while I was messing around during math class. all the primes that i input seemed to output a bigger prime, so I was disappointed to realise after checking on google that not all of them were primes

There very much might be a mod 4 or mod 8 aspect to primes, since there IS one for the bijective multipliers within mod (2^n) spaces .. such that if x*y = 1 then the 4th bit ("eights place") of the binary expansion of x is not equal the 4th bit of the binary expansion of y .. always .. a fact used to calculate modular inverses faster than newton

@styleisaweapon

Жыл бұрын

to be more specific, for a given x, its 2^n modular inverse y will always be the same in the first 3 bits (ones, twos, and fours places) and always be different in the 4th (eights place) .. while after that, it depends

Just like for 3 there's a divisibility rule for 7 that you can use on 1211. Since 10 is 3 mod 7 then 10^2 is 9 = 2 mod 7. So you have 12 * 2 + 11 mod 7 -> 5 * 2 + 4 = 14 = 0 mod 7.

@ckq

Жыл бұрын

Or just subtract twice the last digit: 1211 => 121-2 = 119 => 18-11 = 7

So a schoolkid came up with that idea? Doesn't matter that it doesn't hold eventually, that was smart thinking! I thought I was doing well as an adult for having come across the divisible by 3 rule myself. (I also figured out whether a number can be divided by 11 too, so I call that a win! 😜) We weren't taught anything like this at school (40+ years ago). Obviously we were taught about primes and how to do "long division" (which I promptly forgot after realising that writing it out like a fraction and dividing that way was far simpler and quicker!), and I have the vaguest memories of binary - this was when computers were being coded using punch cards. Only the really smart kids got to do an O level in computing, and they had to go once a week to the only school in the region to have a computer. Binary was of "no use" to anyone who wasn't going to go into STEM subjects. Actually, they didn't even have an acronym back then lol. We didn't even have calculators. I still have my "log book" with the charts of logarithms, cos, sin, tan etc, squares & roots and yet more (can use most of them still if I need to. Just...) My little sister, doing her exams 2 years after me, was in the first year to be allowed to use calculators. Us "oldies" were horrified by the "cheating" 😂. I can still do quite quick mental arithmetic (that was walloped into us in primary, especially our times tables!), including area, volume (unless it involves π, then I need paper, pen and - if I'm not using my calculator, which I usually do now - the log book), percentages and the like. Basically, if it's arithmetic based, I'm hot. One step beyond anything I'm ever likely to use in "real life", I'm clueless! 🤷 To be fair, I got a certificate in mathematics from my uni as an adult, and that was hard work, but I've forgotten everything except the quadratic equation formula (if I didn't already know it). A bit of revision and I'd be great with statistics again - I love playing with numbers. It's just remembering equations and which ones to use when that gets me. I only understand Pythagoras' theorem because of an old joke about fat squaws and a hippopotamus hide. Don't ask, it was barely acceptable in the 70s (even as a kid I squirmed) but it did teach me how to do that! All in all, I'm trying to say how darned impressed I am by that chap as a youngster. I hope he's gone on to success in whatever he does now.

@Shortstuffjo

Жыл бұрын

Once you've mentioned the joke, convention states that no matter how acceptable it is or isn't, you have to tell it!

Paterson primes are the stuff that Parker squares are made of.

@numberphile

Жыл бұрын

I hear you. ;)

On top of 2, 3, 5, there are no 11s in the factors as well - because any number divisible by 5 in base 10 is divisible by 11 when converted into base 4 (since 5a = 4a+a = aa in base 4).

🧑‍💻don't mind me just haxoring into the vault of unreleased vids. FYI I got here from 3B1B's latest vid, endcard linked to this vid.

1:40 Seeing the scrolling stop just before 31 was pretty funny

Loved that outro music on there to the Paterson Primes scrolling by :D

I feel like we have definitely observed an increase in Grady’s mathematical abilities/confidence over the years of him conducting all these wonderful interviews. Love to see it!

That's fascinating. Is it generalizable? That is, can you choose what numbers you want to exclude and then pick a base or, if given a base, can you figure out what it will screen out?

I do have one question about this. would it be possible to find a base that improves this method so it excludes 2,3,5 and 7? I doubt it. but I had to ask since there's a chance that it exists.

Not only is Grant one of the greatest math educators out there today, but he's also getting hella swole.

@MaryamMaqdisi

Жыл бұрын

Yeah I love his videos to teach myself things but I didn’t think he’d be so conventionally attractive lol

@berber-zb3jr

Жыл бұрын

Ikrrrr

As soon as I see a video with the love of my lif- I mean 3blue1brown I have to click immediately

@Numberphile What is the outro song, please? It has a really chill vibe. Neither Shazam nor Google Sound Search had any luck.

@MRich955

Жыл бұрын

Also curious about this :)

2 Three blue one brown videos in one day!

Great cliffhanger.

How do the lengths of unbroken Paterson prime chains behave as the value of the initial term increases? What is the limsup thereof?

Hey ! Cool video ! I wonder if there could be another number N (N = 4 is this video) for which if we take numbers mod N we will "rule out" more prime factors ? Could there be a way/algorithm to find a number N that will rule out the first 3, 4, 10, 100 prime factors ???

Fascinating and now I'm wondering about the relationships between other bases. Is there any base for which this holds? Or a base for which the list of eliminated factors goes much higher? Might have to go write some code...

There’s a mistake at 1:17 in the video. It says 17 is “11” in base 4, but you were converting 5 to base 4 at the time.

Haha, I remember doing that exact same base 4 conversion in middle school and thinking I had found a formula for larger prime numbers. I was very disappointed when I finally stumbled on a counterexample.

We know very big Mersenne primes. But, I assume, not all the primes before it are known. What is the highest prime number where all the primes smaller than it are known?

@chiaracoetzee

Жыл бұрын

Your question cannot really be answered, because if I told you the answer is p, you could very quickly use known algorithms to find a slightly larger prime number, and then that would be the new highest prime number where all the primes smaller than it are known. And you could keep doing this forever. Just not very quickly. We have found all primes up to about 10^18 but not yet 10^19, according to Chris K. Caldwell at UTM. Using best available techniques and all memory storage in the entire world for the sieve, with heavy optimizations, we could conceivably get all primes up to about 10^25. Beyond that, lacking the memory capacity to sieve, you'd have to switch to much slower algorithms that would spit them out one at a time. You could go on finding primes for millions of years that way and never stop.

@christianellegaard7120

Жыл бұрын

@@chiaracoetzee Come to think of it, that's actually quite small, considering that, IIRC, the largest known prime is on the order of 10^2000000.

endgame: We had the best crossover ever! Numperphile and 3Brown1Blue: Hold my brown sheet, please!

It isn't mentioned in the video, but I suspect that the prime distribution of the output follows a log scale.

not divisible by 2 by 3 by 5, so there is a big chance to maintain some occurence in both bases not a wow video. but the music at the end of the video is amazing. what is the track name

Does anyone know how long the longest string of paterson primes might be? in other words how many primes can you possibly generate using some prime number as a seed using this method?

I don't know if anybody has pointed that out already, but there's a mistake @1:16, they are talking about "5", but the video is still showing "17" from the previous example.

Even if it were foolproof, it still wouldn't be a very useful test of primality for the number you started with because you'll have to know if the larger, more "difficult" number is prime or not. As a way to generate primes from a known prime though, it would be pretty great.

Nice sharing keep it up and stay connect ❤️

a + b (mod 3) = a (mod 3) + b (mod 3) isn't strictly true. You still have to mod it again at the end. For example, 2 + 2 (mod 3) is not equal to 2 (mod 3) + 2 (mod 3), which would equal 4.

@m.h.6470

Жыл бұрын

My thought as well!

@hebl47

Жыл бұрын

I think it should be: (a (mod 3) + b (mod 3)) (mod 3)

@m.h.6470

Жыл бұрын

@@hebl47 in theory yes, but that would defeat the point, as you needlessly do 3 operations now, instead of 1.

@hebl47

Жыл бұрын

@@m.h.6470 What else is math if not theory? You have to be precise in phrasing your functions. And doing 3 easy operations instead of one hard is still a win.

@m.h.6470

Жыл бұрын

@@hebl47 I would postulate, that - unless you work with an incredibly large number - you exchange 3 easy against 1 barely medium operation.

This is more personal. I like it.

I suspect (and would love to see) a proof that every "Paterson sequences" have to eventually become composite must be possible. Meaning p --> f(p) --> f(f(p)) --> etc. Eventually must produce a non-prime term.

@killerbee.13

Жыл бұрын

You have to set the condition that p >= 5 because 2 and 3 are trivial counterexamples.

What is the music in the end? Shazam seems to think it is Anton Ishutin - All I Can See. But I'd love to have the exact version that in this video.

Is a specific BaseNumberSystem forbidding us to think in different way? The reason why I ask is because I've seen the movie that says our language system forbids us to think out of the language. So, used language is matching to our decimal basicnumbersystem, my opinion.

@bsharpmajorscale

Жыл бұрын

I wonder how one would transfer thus idea over to something like the surreal numbers?

Finally, a worthy opponent for the venerable Parker Square!

Okay, we need Neil Sloane to get to work finding the longest string of Patterson Primes he can. The rule is: start with a seed prime, do the Patterson Conversion, and if it's prime, convert that, and so on until you run into a composite. What's the largest number you can find that can be reached this way?

Yes, indeed. You have to be very careful if you think you have found a pattern, because there is so much room for coincidence. Always look for counter-examples! My favourite way to visualise the connection between the cross-sums and divisibility is this: 1000 * a + 100 * b + 10 * c + d = 999 * a + a + 99 * b + b + 9 * c + c + d = [an obvious multiple of 9] + a + b + c + d 64 * a + 16 * b + 4 * c + d = 63 * a + a + 15 * b + b + 3 * c + c + d = [an obvious multiple of 3] + a + b + c + d In general, the difference between a base-N number and its cross-sum is a multiple of N-1.

Do we know if there are infinitely many Paterson primes?

as the non-math paterson of the family, i understand none of this but love that my brother and grant do

Got here early from the new 3B1B vid, it seems!

Now I desperately want to know if the Paterson Prime chain can be infinite, and if not, what's the maximum length.

@numberphile

Жыл бұрын

Great question.

@alzblb1417

Жыл бұрын

prime 5 has length 5, then the smallest prime that has length 6 is 101495533. I haven't found 7 or more yet.

@kindlin

Жыл бұрын

I suspect it's just a question of probability and search depth. If each prime may or may not generate another prime, and it's never a zero percent chance, so if you check long enough, I don't see why you couldn't find any finite length chain. Doubt it's infinite tho...

So there are two possibilities for the result: either it's a Paterson Prime, or it's a Parker Prime 😆

The Patrick Paterson Patented Procedure for Procuring Primes

me when my favourite numbers (607 and 67) for reasons unrelated to math happen to be both prime numbers

Oh shoot! I went to high school with both of them! Didn't realize

Are there any larger primes that will never appear as prime factors of a numbers that this method produces?

Now i want to know how long a string of primes you can generate by flipping back and forth before you hit a composite number.

this comment proves i reached the end of the 3b1b video

By the way, you said it doesn't have the immunity from 11, but the divisibility test for 11 implies that having the larger number divisible by 11 requires either at least 9011 (with the larger number equal to 2030303) or for the larger number to be divisible by 5. (If you can't see why, remember that 5 is 11 base 4).

Is there anything interesting about seeing what starting prime number generates the longest streak of "Paterson Primes"? Is there a limit to how long the streak can go, or can it be arbitrarily long? Maybe there's a sequence of: what is the smallest prime number that generates exactly n Paterson primes before hitting a non-prime, for n = 1, 2, 3, etc.? 🤔

@themathhatter5290

Жыл бұрын

I believe, just from the video and a couple comments here, that series would start 31,13,7,5,101495533... with it being unknown whether there can be a chain of length 7.

It makes me wonder if there are some number that used in the please of four in this algorithm you get more prime numbers?🤔

I love 3 blue 1 brown, especially as it was a spinoff of 2 girls 1 cup

@StefanReich

Жыл бұрын

omg

Whats the longest Paterson prime sequence where the term is the next input that are actually primes?

Im imagining someone using the biggest discovered Mersenne prime and then stumbling upon a new prime by pure luck.

So some of the numberphile videos with Ben are shot at Brady's place. But these seem to be over at Grants.

I come from the “ pattern fool ya”

Woah, am I supposed to be here?

@delofon

Жыл бұрын

what if grant trolled brady

I love 3blue1brown!

At school I had this similar idea of generating primes with (2^N)-1 where N is a prime.

@zyxzevn

Жыл бұрын

Fails at 2^11-1 which is 23x89 and 2^23-1 which is 47x178381

Refreshing Video to watch. A wealth of numbers , fluently if not lyrically narrated and keyboard soundtrack. From what your saying, increase the base and you increase the number of primes ?