Correction at 4:08… Neil says “then we get twice 61" instead of “about twice 61". The actual result is 120, not 122 as labelled.

@yoram_snir

Жыл бұрын

If his eyes were closed, he could make that correction without making a fuss about it.

@daddymuggle

Жыл бұрын

@@yoram_snir he was showing off by doing it with his eyes open.

@deserado11

Жыл бұрын

... obviously... ?! ...

@Marlosian

Жыл бұрын

Also, it's Iceland and not Icleand like mentioned at 0:10 ;)

@Pystro

Жыл бұрын

As explained at 18:25, you (most typically) COME from twice the prime whenever you hit a prime. I.e. the sequence being 2*61, some odd 160-ish number, 61, some even number around 2*61 that happens to be divisible by 3 and 5 (call this X), 61 times the smallest number that is coprime to X (61*7). Or you could come from 3 times the prime, with the sequence being 3*67, some even number just under 2*67, 67, some even number below or just above 2*67 (call this X) which happens to be divisible by 3, the smallest number that is coprime to X times 67 (5*67).

man, "always choose the smallest option" is both the only sensible way to make it a unique sequence and also does so much work in the proof. I love how beautiful and intuitive this makes this proof.

@SamnissArandeen

Жыл бұрын

It's also the most convenient for if you want to write a Python script to find you the permutation of length n, where a while loop can always start at 4 and iterate by 1 each time it checks for a compliant number. The FIRST number it finds each time will always be the smallest. Run this same loop inside a for loop that iterates for n-3 times, et voila!

@wyattstevens8574

4 ай бұрын

N-3 because we get for free that for n < 4, a(n)= n?

The best part is Neil’s evil laugh after “Step five…yes…” 11:21

TIL the British pronunciation of geyser is "geezer" (which also means an old man). The American pronunciation is with a long I, so "gizer" or "guy-zer".

@IMarvinTPA

Жыл бұрын

And American geezers are old men, but usually emphasize like "You Old Geezer"

@IngieKerr

Жыл бұрын

I [and this is a personal pedantic thing, being an íslandophile] feel it should be pronounced in English "Gayseer" - as the root of the English word is the icelandic "Geysir" - pronounced in icelandic as [almost] "Cayseer" ​[ˈceiːsɪr̥] , the name given to the Icelandic one of that name - from the verb for "gush" - [ís: gusa], which used to errupt near to Strokkur [the geysir shown in the video of iceland] before becoming unstable and now very rare to errupt. But I am quite picky, so :))

@terencetsang9518

Жыл бұрын

I wonder if that is like Caesar vs Kaiser

@mytube001

Жыл бұрын

@@terencetsang9518 Yes. The original Latin was something like "GAEH-sarr" (using "g" instead of "c/k" to indicate that it's not an aspirated plosive like "c/k" would be in English, but sounds much more like a "g"). The "ae" represents two separate and pure vowels spoken together, not a diphthong. The "rr" represents a trilled, tip-of-the-tongue "r" sound, like in Spanish. The modern "SEE-sur" is wildly different from Classical Latin.

@PhilBagels

Жыл бұрын

@@mytube001 And the two words are not etymologically related. "Geyser" is related to "gush" (thank you, Ingie!), but "Caesar" is related to "scissors" and other words meaning "to cut". Leading to the legend (probably not true) that Caesar was born by Caesarian section, i.e., cut from his mother's womb.

I love that you are mostly actually showing his writing instead of just showing the animation of it in this one. It fits.

Man, watching videos with Neil in them is like listening to a math lesson narrated by Bob Ross. It's super interesting and I feel all warm and fuzzy just by listening to him

@greatquux

Жыл бұрын

His voice and talking style do seem to have an ASMR-ready kind of appeal for sure. But only when talking about math!

@simongran5611

Жыл бұрын

Leo?

@Doktor_Vem

Жыл бұрын

​@@simongran5611 Hallå där, Simon! Det var länge sedan! Vilket sammanträffande att stöta på dig här! :D

@pawebielinski4903

Жыл бұрын

He's among my favourite Numberphile contributors. Also, I think it's adorable how he drops some details because of sheer excitement :3

@rudiklein

Жыл бұрын

Imagine Neil with a Bob Ross wig.

Seeing him smile when you ask if it's predictable, or if its non-predictable, was so heart warming, made me smile, I love the fact that numbers and rules can be real once explained why it's great. This is how we should teach math, explaining why its cool first, then get into details. Shame math growing up is quite lame. At least the teachers/experiments that could be done like science.

I really like the way this proof keeps building into successively stronger results at each step. "smallest legal term" is the simple and obvious way to define the sequence, but magically makes proving its properties easy

hell yeah more neil sloane

@bovinespongiformflu

Жыл бұрын

Seriously a treasure. Anytime I see him, Hannah Fry, or Ed Copeland, instant watch

I am really glad there are people who enjoy math and can perform such feats, but there is no way that I could ever put the effort into creating such a sequence. Bravo to you!

I have some points of confusion about the proof. I tried giving my own interpretations below, but hopefully, someone can explain these points. 6:20 Why 15 times q? I feel like whatever the second-to-last term is should replace "15" here. 8:09 Do the visuals match what Sloane said? I think the visuals are saying "p appears in the sequence, and every term after is composite," which I don't think relates to anything. I feel like it might make more sense if Sloane is saying "no primes greater than or equal to p divide any term in the entire sequence." 9:10 Why must the GCD be a prime number? It might make more sense if the GCD could be composite, and q is just any prime number that divides the GCD. In that case, it is still true to say that qp is not in the sequence, but it satisfies the requirements for being in position n, so a(n)

@eithan

Жыл бұрын

Thanks, 6:20 confused me as well, didn't understand the choice for 15., using the second to last makes much more sense.

@silver6054

Жыл бұрын

@@eithan Yes, I guess second-to-last * q works for this part of the proof. It might not be legal, in the sense that it might not be the smallest possible value, but the same is true for 15! And if the second last term doesn't have a 3 or 5 as a factor, 15 is invalid anyway.

@zmaj12321

Жыл бұрын

@@silver6054 Yeah, the claim is not that it's the smallest possible. We are just showing that at least one value works, and therefore there must be a minimum working value.

@jyrinx

Жыл бұрын

At 12:55, a(k+2) could be smaller than p, but it can't be any bigger, and this can only happen p times before you run out of numbers smaller than p. (I agree it's a missing link but I enjoyed puzzling it out.)

@Macieks300

Жыл бұрын

9:10 Yes, and in fact saying gcd here is a mistake. He should've said "a prime factor" instead - then it works.

I wish they'd colored the terms that are inputs vs the outputs differently. Then it'd be easier to follow for me. I'll definitely have to rewatch this a few times to full grasp the proof.

I had a lot of fun stopping the video each time Neil revealed a step to try and prove it myself! 😊 thanks for the video Brady!

Always excited when there's a new video out!

Professor: It's all done with simple math. Me: (Lost within 20 seconds)

He says it's easy, but it might be the hardest proof on this channel. Following subtle logic and actually understanding why every step is correct is much, _much_ harder than even a very difficult calculation. It's the difference between creative insights and cranking an algorithmic handle.

@zmaj12321

Жыл бұрын

I think some of the proofs that Professor Stankova has demonstrated may be more difficult (especially that famous IMO problem), since they have the same level of creative insight with some tougher math. But I also agree that Sloane might be underestimating how tricky this one is!

@PhilBagels

Жыл бұрын

He goes a bit fast, but if you stop the video and think about each step, it's actually pretty easy. Which is a lot of fun! Several very simple steps in a row - each one of which is obvious when you stop and think about it - combine into something that is not obvious at all.

@lonestarr1490

Жыл бұрын

@@PhilBagels I think it was Alexander Grothendieck who once said: Don't try to prove anything that isn't almost obvious.

@QuantumHistorian

Жыл бұрын

@@PhilBagels True, and the right up on OEID is a lot easier to follow (the W and L function are confusing IMO). But, all that being the case, saying that something is obvious _if and only if you stop to think about its explanation_ is just the same as saying that it isn't obvious! Which is just another form of that old truism that all questions are easy when you know the answer.

@alexpotts6520

Жыл бұрын

There's one about circles presented by the curly-haired Aussie guy which I absolutely could not wrap my head around after multiple viewings.

I have to admit I couldn't follow this proof - although I'm sure I could if I were reading it from a paper. This is unusual, though! Most of Neil's videos are easy to follow along with. The sequences he parades before us are like circus acts, and he is the ringmaster... he even has Big Top wallpaper 😉

@andreare7766

Жыл бұрын

That makes two of us.

@Dreamprism

Жыл бұрын

What I didn't follow from the video is how a(n) > p^2 > qp for n-2 > L(p^2) was a contradiction. Just because we prove that a(n) is larger than a smaller thing doesn't mean that it's not still larger than the larger thing. I'll think on it more and probably figure it out, but he could've elaborated better there. I do usually understand his explanations.

@Alex_Deam

Жыл бұрын

@@DreamprismHe starts by looking at some a(n) bigger than p^2. Under the assumption that no prime p or bigger appears as a factor of any number in the sequence, a(n) has some prime factor q So let a(n)=Mq for some integer M. We have Mq > p^2. However, by assumption, pq never appears in the sequence (since no term is divisible by the prime p or bigger). But pq Now, remember one of the defining properties of the sequence: pick the SMALLEST POSSIBLE number that fits the other rules. pq certainly fits the other rules - it shares a factor of q with a(n-2) and it has no factors in common with a(n-1). Therefore, we should have that a(n)=qp. But we assumed p didn't appear as a factor of any number in the sequence. Contradiction. And since p was arbitrary, we contradicted the assumption there was a largest prime that appears as a factor.

@IllusoryMaze

Жыл бұрын

Try starting with the final two steps, taking for granted the assumptions that are proven in the previous ones, and then go back.

@tobiasbudde5852

Жыл бұрын

Yeah. Sometimes Neil is too quick for even himself and makes some mistakes or misses some important detail. The OEIS has a clean proof.

At 4:08, doesn’t 61 followed by 122 break the relatively prime rule?

@srarun1996

Жыл бұрын

Yes it will break. They got the value wrong in the video. I checked it in the sequence wiki. It's not 122, it's 120 ... 131 159 *132 61* *133 120* *134 427* 135 124 ...

Q.E.D. - "Quod Erat Demonstrandum" - "which was to be demonstrated." Or a small filled box after the written proof.

You say "geezer", I say "guyzer". I love these videos, and the extra nuggets like the differences between British and American English.

Predictable in the same sense that the primes are predictable, so not predictable, but in away predictable... LOVE IT !

This man is a gift.

Neil really is my favorite guest on this channel. Just so many interesting insights and patterns to explore

I like the geyser illustration/animation.

Neil's delight is infectious.

6:23 how can you be sure that the term one back won't have 3 and/or 5 as factors?

@gerdkah6064

Жыл бұрын

that also buffles me ..

@globalincident694

Жыл бұрын

Yeah I think there are a couple of flaws in the proof as he laid it out. When he was talking about the gcd he didn't actually show that the gcd was a prime number, for instance, he just assumed it.

@LaytonBehelit

Жыл бұрын

I looked at the OEIS page and actually it was a(n-2)*q rather than 15*q.

@mikeflowerdew7877

Жыл бұрын

Yeah I thought the same. My assumption is that something went wrong in the editing, and he's actually talking about some particular example where 15 actually works. But that's just a guess though - it absolutely can't work in general (after 15 itself, for example).

@johannschiel6734

Жыл бұрын

@@LaytonBehelit Thanks, that makes a lot more sense!

Love this guy, his voice is very calming

Great video. Just noting that this should be added to the "Neil Sloane on Numberphile" playlist.

Lovely sequence but got to say i have to re watch this when I'm not on the train to work

As a Texan, this man appears to live at Whataburger

I like how this guy works in the corner of a circus tent. Awesome video as always! Thank You!

Very entertaining and beautiful video.

Neil Sloane has incredible insight.

2:15 the way he said “nine” was really really funny lol

Could you please do a video about OEIS A068869 "smallest number k such that n! + k is a square" and explain why for n = 1,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,13,14,15 & 16, k itself is also a square. And while you're there, can you explain why for when n = 12, k is not a square? I think it's pretty curious and would love to know what's going on there. Thanks!

@rosiefay7283

Жыл бұрын

I guess that among all the ways to express n! as the product of two integer factors, the way where the factors are closest is likely to be two even numbers, just because powers of 2 are so abundant in n!. And (x-k)(x+k)+k^2=x^2.

@billmaloney8595

Жыл бұрын

@@rosiefay7283 I'm not sure I know what you mean

I really enjoy the OEIS videos. I got a sequence accepted a few years ago (A328225) after one of these videos. This just reminded me that I never figured out why my sequence looked the way it did when it was plotted. I would love to hear some thoughts. I am not a mathematician in any form, so it could be absolutely nothing.

@spaceyote7174

Жыл бұрын

How did you generate the sequence?

@connorohiggins8000

Жыл бұрын

@@spaceyote7174 I was just playing around with some code I was working on and I stumbled across the sequence.

This is brilliant! No matter how bad my insomnia, that smooth voice never fails..

At 8:10 he says that "from prime p on, all primes are missing". It's important to the argument that p is *not* in the sequence. But the visuals imply that p is the last prime in the sequence. Confused me for a while, because I thought p was in the sequence and I didn't think his argument made sense.

Neil is a gem. Shiny bright bro, you light up the world!

Fascinating!

I love how he is basically the grandpa of math youtube ❤

I think your graphics for step 3 are wrong. At 8:10 you show _p_ as being in the sequence, but the proof's assumption (explained correctly in the voiceover) is that _p_ *doesn't* appear in the sequence. To be more exact, the assumption is: for any number that appears in the sequence _a(n),_ the prime factorization of _a(n)_ includes only primes that are strictly smaller than _p_ . In particular, _p_ itself doesn't appear in the sequence, because its prime factorization is just _p_ meaning that it includes the primes we forbade.

@jacemandt

Жыл бұрын

I think you phrased the assumption as: suppose p is the first prime that doesn't appear. But I think Sloane is phrasing it as: suppose p is the largest prime that *does* appear.

@NeatNit

Жыл бұрын

@@jacemandt The exact phrasing is, emphasis mine: > Proof: suppose not. Suppose *[from] prime p on, all primes are missing.* [... Something lost in editing ...] and from then on, all the terms are *products of primes less than p.* "p on" (inclusive) are missing "terms are products of primes less than p" (less than p, not including p) The rest of the proof also seems to work only if p does not appear in the sequence.

@varunachar87

Жыл бұрын

Yes, thank you! It is quite important that p itself not appear in the first place. This caused me much confusion.

@thephysicistcuber175

Жыл бұрын

@@NeatNit I don't understand the step where he says that gcd(a(n),a(n-2)) has to be a prime.

@NeatNit

Жыл бұрын

@@thephysicistcuber175 At what point does he say or assume that? I think he just says that it has to be >1.

11:03 Thank you Brady for trying to keep him honest.

15:50 I definitely thought for certain that Neil was going to say " I will try to say "Guy-zer", because I am the "gee-zer" here !!

Fascinating

Is there a mistake here or am I missing something? 0:55 Two numbers next to each other must be "relatively prime" (gcd = 1) 4:08 you have the prime 61 next to a 122. That would mean they have a gcd of 61, not only 1 Edit: I see someone else's comment found that it was supposed to be 120, not 122. ty internet stranger

4:11 isn't that wrong? After 61 we can't have 122, because obviously gcd(61,122) = 2. According to the OEIS the next term is 120.

@NeatNit

Жыл бұрын

True. Quoting from another comment by Arun S R: Yes it will break. They got the value wrong in the video. I checked it in the sequence wiki. It's not 122, it's 120 128 110 129 177 130 122 131 159 132 61 133 120 134 427 135 124 136 183

@Gna-rn7zx

Жыл бұрын

gcd(61,122) = 61 But your point stands

@bur2000

Жыл бұрын

@@Gna-rn7zx Of course, thanks.

I didn't need to click this video to know that it would be Neil Sloane showing us this bizarre and wonderful sequence

5.37 If I close my eyes to work it out I'm not waking up!

*What a beautiful sequence this is! 🌺*

Love you guys

I presume starting with 1,2,3 rather than 1,2 is required because of the special nature of 1 having no non-unit factors. That means I could start the sequence with any two seeds that are non-unit and coprime. Will the sequence eventually evolve into the same sequence as the one that starts with 1,2,3? If so, can you predict how long it will take to do so based on the values of the two seed numbers?

I like, rather obviovus but IMO interesting, conclusion from the fact that all natural numbers appear in the sequence. This is a fancy procedure to shuffle natural numbers.

Triangular relationship between triangles in step1,step2,step3.

I noticed this time that Neil's ceiling wallpaper looks like the Whataburger stripes!

1:44 As a computer scientist, the easier way to frame this is that the penultimate term generates an ascending list of viable candidates (thus terminating at first success), and the ultimate term acts as a filter, accepting only a subset. More specifically, the unique factors of the penultimate term each generate a simple multiplicative sequence, and you need to perform an efficient online merge sort. This can be accomplished by maintaining a heap (data structure) containing the next term for each unique factor, then you pick the smallest of these replacing it in the heap by the next term for that factor. You can do pop/push (replacement) in a single logarithmic rebalance. Adding more sophistication, you can process several small factors in parallel more efficiently with bit vectors. But the actual runtime in the hybrid model would depend on the distribution of primes (modulo this strange sequence generation process). I suspect the distribution of primes has been studied, but I'm a computer scientist, so what do I know? Edit: I wasn't clear on this, but you also have to filter on numbers previously used.

At 6:22 it feels like something got edited out, since what he says doesn't make sense in general. Maybe he was talking about an example where the second to last term was specifically 15? (Always multiplying the second to last term by some big prime should work in general for what he's doing in that step)

"Five... heh-heh-heh-heh... Yes." - Neil Sloane

Neil Sloane is the GOAT

Step 1 of the proof seems incomplete. Consider a(6): 15·q, for some large prime q, is not a candidate for n=6, because it shares a factor with a(5)=9, and also because it *doesn't* share a factor with a(4)=4. Am I missing something here? Edit: the 15 is the error, see comment below

@globalincident694

Жыл бұрын

Yeah what he said is just wrong, but easily fixable. We can generate a possible value for a(n) by picking a large prime q and using a(n-2)·q.

@jacemandt

Жыл бұрын

Ah, I see. That candidate clearly shares a factor with a(n-2), and so the only factor it might share with a(n-1) is q, but we can pick q large enough so that doesn't happen.

Impossible to click play fast enough on a Neil video

Hopefully, in 2023, I'd like to dig deeper into the quantitative relationship between the ulam spiral and giant primes, and watch a video of your best team independently observing and measuring and discussing these coordinates and at the moment.

I like that this man works inside a Whataburger bag.

I have fallen asleep many times watching these videos. (No offense, I love the videos lol) Today i'm gonna put these on autoplay so I can fall asleep faster to wake up early for school.

Hasn't he got a lovely soothing voice?

btw this video isnt in your guys' neil sloane playlist! i recently went through the whole playlist and was sad there wasnt more, but then i found out there was

I'd have thought 7 could never find its way back in the series

It’s a brilliant proof. Simple, but not obvious, and completely accessible to anyone once they see it.

How do people find these sequences? Do they just write down random rules until something interesting appears?

Series is definite.

20:17 - JAMES BISSONETTE!!! History Matters AND Numberphile, the man has exquisite taste in Patreon subs.

You should make a video about 52!, the number of ways a deck of cards can be arranged, and talk about Scott Czepiels representation of the size of it. It’s very interesting. Vsause has a clip from a video about it. It would be a great topic for the channel.

@michaelkelsey4918

4 ай бұрын

They've definitely done a video on it

Really cool sequence, but the proof of permutation moved far too quickly for a numberphile video. I plan to come back to this again later.

Amazing ! A video about the Yellowstone permutation with Neil in the role of the Old Faithful (to the number sequences) ! (admiring joke, no offence)

What I found more interesting than the geyser 35 at 13 is that 12 is the 12th number in the series. How many times is a number itself in this series? I feel this could be another followup discussion.

@kespeth2

Жыл бұрын

i.e. the cases where w(m) = m. so far as shown early, it's 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, ... are all cases where w(m) = m. I"m curious as to how often relatively to the sequence does that happen?

@blake_n

Жыл бұрын

We see the sequence plotted out very far @17:49. That the twelfth term is 12 would appear on the red y=x line very early on, but then the blue lines of odds and evens get further from y=x as the sequence proceeds. So if the theory mentioned at the very end can be proven, the one which defines the evens and odds lines based on the pattern break at 101, then you won't get any more results like that after the first terms. This seems like a "strong law of small numbers" thing, where funny things happen with the earlier terms in the sequence because we have relatively few small numbers to work with.

If you consider Randell L Mills cosmology that mass/energy are only half of quanta's game, that all of this is restricted to this, the present r-sphere until particle annihilation, then, how do we get all of this to be fully contained, to neutralize and move on? I think Sloane is onto it.

I like the idea of recording this inside a Whataburger restaurant with the orange and white stripes, but there aren't any in Wyoming.

It may seem strange for Neil to have said that this proof can be done with your eyes closed, but it actually makes perfect sense. The proof has 7 steps, but as long as you have a decent memory, you can remember the outcome of each step, to then complete the next, and each individual step is really just elementary logic and algebra, so it can be done in your head. The only reason it looks complicated in the video is because Neil has to actually explain the intuition to the viewers, and this is obviously more complicated than the proof itself.

That must be interesting

after all this i'm just wondering what happens if you put different starting configurations, like maybe 1, 1, 1 could be interesting

@PhilBagels

Жыл бұрын

1, 1, 1, can't work, because the next step has to be relatively prime with 1 and also have a common factor with 1. Something's gotta give there. But you could try starting with 1, 3, 2, or 1, 2, 5, or 1, 3, 5, etc. Since you're always adding on the lowest number that works, you'll still always get every number. Let's see now, 1, 3, 2, would continue with 9, 4, 15, 8, 5, 6, 25, 12, 35, 16, 7, ...

@pe1900

Жыл бұрын

@@PhilBagels yeah i didn't think of that, i do still think those other ones would be interesting though

@scienceevolves4417

11 ай бұрын

Endofprimes

This is *not a permutation* - it is *definitely a convolution.*

7 steps is not simple.

I don't understand much of these numerical videos but it's still super intriguing to watch, thanks 🧮

What if we have different starting terms instead of 1,2,3

On step 5, couldn't Q be immediately after P×n, making P^whatever not an option?

*Numberphile drops* Me: “Cool! Let’s check it out” *it’s Neil* Me: *visible happiness mixed with euphoric screaming*

Anything with primes has ths tension between predictable and unpredictable! This is the craziest permutation of the integers I have seen - going to work through that proof on my own sheet of paper. He's like a magician producing a rabbit, you don't know how they came up with the proof and he's justifiably smug about it.

What a beautiful proof!

A question about stage 3 of the proof: doesn't assuming p² appears in the sequence contradict the premise of this stage? Shouldn't we assume p² is missing from the sequence entirely?

@xtifr

Жыл бұрын

It doesn't assume p² is _in_ the sequence. It assumes that there's a point, L(p²), after which all numbers in the sequence are _greater than_ p². We don't know (can't know, if p² is not in the sequence) exactly what that point is, but we know it must exist, since the sequence is infinite, while the numbers less than or equal to p² are finite. (The explanation of L(n) was confusing; it took me a couple of tries to get it. It really is just: the point at which all remaining numbers in the sequence are greater than n.)

"Geezer will appear in a different video..." LOL that was great.

Could you use the fundamental theorem of arithmetic to prove this as well? Since every positive whole number can be written as a product of primes

I didn't understand why we can choose 15*P and it would be relatively prime to previous term. Can someone please help me here with what am I missing ?

@zmaj12321

Жыл бұрын

I have no clue why 15 was used there. I think it works if you multiply p by the second-to-last term in the supposedly finite sequence. Then, it is guaranteed to share a factor with that term without sharing a factor with the last term (since adjacent terms are relatively prime).

@ashishranjan4623

Жыл бұрын

@@zmaj12321 Got it, second-to-last term makes sense. He might have said it and it was edited out accidentally.

Wow. I totally couldn’t follow this one. I was lost in the weeds before the halfway point.

Thank

If I grasped all this on one quick pass, the interesting sequence is G(p), the index of the first term where prime p occurs as a non-trivial factor (hence necessarily a geyser term). And then you would immediately ask whether G(p) is monotonic. Then I suppose a real mathematician would wonder whether G(p) is asymptotically bounded, above or below, by an expression such as p! - to make a wild guess at the right magnitude ball park. Though I know there are sequences where the growth function is much, much, _much_ more hideous. You can also use a suitable surrogate for G(p), conveniently re-denominated, such as prime index, but that gets into actual mathematical taste, which I only have concerning the genius of other people. Concerning home-cooked mathematical taste, my cupboard is bare (and my sorry mutt has to gnaw on the rug).

I really didnt get the part where if 19 divides something it must mean 17 could have divided it as well.

@Gna-rn7zx

Жыл бұрын

Yes, I think he must have glossed over something because that made no sense to me as well. That would mean both 17 and 19 divide the previous term, and I don't see why that should be the case...

@panPetr0ff

Жыл бұрын

Look at the oeis (A098550) sequence - we see that the prime numbers appear in increasing order, so until 17 appears in the sequence, the next prime number 19 cannot appear. Explanation: for example, if the sequence ends [1,2,3... ...k*m, x] ==> it can continue: (1) [1,2,3......k*m, x, k*17, y, 17] or (2) [1,2,3... ...k*m, x, k*19, y, 19] ...but since a smaller unused number takes precedence, the first option is correct

Man, Icleand sure is pretty. Looks a lot like Iceland, really. (0:07)

Find you someone who loves you the way Neil Sloane loves numbers.

If all prime's 'cause' geysers, can one not work back from geysers to find primes?

They are never going to run out of math problems