I actually have a proof for the Riemann Hypothesis, but it is too large to fit in the comment section.

@measthmatic_mathematics.

10 ай бұрын

😀🎉

@dragonuv620

10 ай бұрын

That's a great Fermat reference!

@crazychicken8290

10 ай бұрын

how is that a reference to him@@dragonuv620

@Soul-cu8zn

10 ай бұрын

Bro's trying to be fermat

@JackLWalsh

9 ай бұрын

Do tell.

This was my explanation for every exam I failed. I just didn’t have the tools

@Sushant_saurabh

5 ай бұрын

Bro 😂😂

@pestifygaminghacks4713

5 ай бұрын

I mean its true

@zakariatalukdar2552

3 ай бұрын

And you are right

@ozjaszhorowitz919

3 ай бұрын

funny

@tristan583

2 ай бұрын

Lmaoo

I know where the function is zero at all times. I know this because I know where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), I obtain a difference, or deviation.. I use deviations to generate corrective equations to drive the function from a position where it is zero to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't.

@measthmatic_mathematics.

9 ай бұрын

What a nice explanation 🔥😁🤭

@Neonb88

8 ай бұрын

"Good hitting will always beat good pitching. And vice versa" - Yogi Berra

@zlatanibrahimovic8329

8 ай бұрын

this reminds me of a shrek scene

@RealGigaMind

8 ай бұрын

I understood that reference

@theblinkingbrownie4654

5 ай бұрын

For anyone wondering, this guy is a missile attacking the roots of the riemann zeta function.

I suggest using a dream-catcher spliced to a vision board, coupled with quantum manifesting through mindfulness. If that doesn't work, try peppermint oil.

@evanblake5252

8 ай бұрын

Finally, some real mathematical insight.

@yousefabdelmonem3788

7 ай бұрын

Lost me at mindfulness

@Limabean1125

7 ай бұрын

Now we’re talking. Someone get on this right away!

@zwan1886

2 ай бұрын

I don't have funding for all that

@sepsap

22 күн бұрын

What about the law of attraction?

Proof: If Reimann said this was true, it must be true. Hence, proved

@xinpingdonohoe3978

5 ай бұрын

That doesn't hold for Riemann. You need a stronger conjecture, like Ramanujan.

@nuruzzamankhan1610

5 ай бұрын

Ramanujan : I saw it in my dreams and/or it suddenly sparked in my mind out of nowhere. Hence it must be true. Proved.

@JohnDoe-ti2np

5 ай бұрын

Riemann only said that the hypothesis is "very likely" and that he "put aside the search for a proof after some fleeting vain attempts."

@souvik610

3 ай бұрын

Hey that's religion for you!

@sasx1487

Ай бұрын

Proof by homie vibes

This guy has great promise. I bet he could be a mathematician some day

@allantourin

7 ай бұрын

tired of these sarcastic comments written by kids

@doorhandledestroyer

7 ай бұрын

@@allantourinyou don’t have to be serious or “formal” in a place like youtube lol

@abdullahhussain9675

7 ай бұрын

@@allantourin tired of people telling others who don't care that they're tired

@rohakdebnath8985

7 ай бұрын

​@@allantourin ok and

@dhairyasood4109

7 ай бұрын

​@@allantourinwho

They say they are not trying but secretely some are indeed trying.

Great insight. This also helps explain why scientist and luminaries are revered for uncovering what's now considered basic knowledge--they basically climbed the Himalayas without modern technology. A sherpa 200 years ago is more impressive than a modern tourist now with tons of gear and mountaineering equipment

@rohanpatel2828

4 ай бұрын

12th Fail

I feel that this guy is very intelligent

@yewdimer1465

10 ай бұрын

He's considered to be one of the smartest people of all time...

@Yzjoshuwave

9 ай бұрын

I think I’ve heard he has a 226 IQ. Somewhere around there anyway.

@samiloom8565

9 ай бұрын

@@Yzjoshuwave wow god bless

@makssachs8914

9 ай бұрын

@@Yzjoshuwavecan I have a dna sample from him? I need to become superhuman too.

@TeFurto777

9 ай бұрын

@@samiloom8565 He was considered by Super Scholar to be one of the ten most brilliant minds in the world. His estimated IQ is 230 to 250. He was already taking classes at university at the age of 10, he finished his master's degree at the age of 16, then he did a postgraduate degree and at the age of 20 he finished his doctorate at Princeton. He was the youngest to participate in the IMO (International Mathematics Olympiad) at the age of 10, and remains the youngest to win 3 medals in the history of the IMO. He also won the Fields Medal, which is the equivalent of the Nobel of Mathematics.

Why are so many people in the comments behaving like they are smarter than Terry Tao

@CalculusIsFun1

10 ай бұрын

People with huge egos who see people better than them, instead of aspiring to be like that person or at least try to get closer see them as a threat to their superiority complex mindset and feel the need to insult them as a self defense tactic.

@measthmatic_mathematics.

10 ай бұрын

I think it's all about their point views.... 🤗😌

@cantripleplays

9 ай бұрын

They are joking

@evanblake5252

8 ай бұрын

Some are, but not all. When a large portion of people are making idiots of themselves, the answer is pretty much never as simple as "everyone is joking". @@cantripleplays

@Neonb88

8 ай бұрын

​@@cantripleplaysI was gonna say it's funny

The answer is 6

@mrsillytacos

8 ай бұрын

🤣

@thebaldpizzaman6319

6 ай бұрын

Incorrect. You’re supposed to round to 2 digits, not just 1. The answer is 06.

@spiderjerusalem4009

5 ай бұрын

6 what? 6 apples? 6 oranges? 6 metres? 6 pi? 6 phi? 6 leminiscate constant? 6 catalant constant?

@rutomeds

5 ай бұрын

@@spiderjerusalem4009 Rayo(6) probably

@theblinkingbrownie4654

5 ай бұрын

​@@spiderjerusalem40096

Alex Honnold solves the extended Riemann hypothesis would be quite a revelation.

I proved it but the margins of this comment section are too small

@Mustafa_Shahzad

Ай бұрын

Blud is not Fermat

wellcome to Kurt Godel!!!!!!!!!!!

Theorem 2.5 : Riemann hypothesis. Proof: see exercise 2.9 Exercise 2.9: Prove Theorem 2.5

bros tongue cant catch up to his brain😂

Terence Tao: on solving 2+2

Us engineers do like to think of ourselves as smart, but tbh, good mathematicians are just on another level. It's awe-inspiring what they can come up with

@kodirome3859

3 күн бұрын

We're just good at learning and following directions lol. (Elec. Engineer) My friend graduated for physics and had an almost indentical schedule other than a few classes for our majors and id say, people who go into math majors definitely have their hand (and mind) in many other fields of study

@kodirome3859

3 күн бұрын

He could have easily graduated as an engineer even though he makes way less with a math degree, i think it shows his intellegence. We also went to the same HS and we had all honors classes together but be did way better on act than 95% of our entire class

Terry Tao, easily the best and most prolific mathematical genius of our time, isn't saying, "If I can't do it, then no one can." Instead, he's saying, "Someone has to get lucky/clever first and figure out a possiblr strategy or avenue for progress. Once that's done, I-- and a few others-- could see whether or not this leads to a proof. But it would probably not get us that far."

@ianstopher9111

Ай бұрын

You have to look at the convoluted proof of Fermat's Last theorem via Taniyama-Shimura-Weil conjecture, Frey curves, the epsilon conjecture before finally Wiles and Taylor. All of these earlier pieces were the handholds to scale.

This man is a rock star, mathematician par excellence. I could listen to Terrence speak all day.👍🏾

@maskedmarvyl4774

Ай бұрын

And you Ciould listen to him all day, and get as much information as you got here.

Yes, but even in his analogy there must be someone , something or multiple people to push forward and take the risk of climbing that sheer cliff face first, with seemingly impossible odds..... that's when real breakthroughs occur.

@admirljubovic6759

Ай бұрын

True!

@dscheme3247

27 күн бұрын

You are misundertanding his analogy. If that happened it wouldn't be a breakthrough. It would be the result of some tedious and hard work but it probably wouldn't provide any insightful mathematical perspective. After all almost every mathematiciam thinks that the conjucture is true. I would say that to some extent fermat's last theorem is another good example

@voidzennullspace

26 күн бұрын

@@dscheme3247 "It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer." -Albert Einstein "If others would but reflect on mathematical truths as deeply and as continuously as I have, they would make my discoveries." -C.F. Gauss I didn't misunderstand anything. Just because T. Tao thinks the "tools aren't there" doesn't mean someone else who spends more time, effort, energy and so forth on the problem won't make some ground breaking discovery. Just look at what happened with Gregori Perelman and the Poincare Conjecture. Yes, tediousness and hard work is how you make progress dude. One of the many things I've been told by advisors in my PhD program is that resilience and dedication is very important. You can't just expect all problems to be solved via epiphany...you must work on your proofs diligently. Yes, Fermat's last theorem is a phenomenal example of a bunch of mathematicians working very hard for years to make small discoveries which ended up being key in solving the problem.

However unlike scaling without handholds, you won't die falling multiple times

If Tao says it, it's good enough for me. That's it, I give up trying to prove the Riemann Hypothesis today.

When I try to explain this to boomers they call me a quitter

I found the answer, it is actually lim_x->0 (1/x)

Thank you so much for your honesty.

Bro is so smart it literally sounds like his mouth just cannot keep up with the speed of his mind

Damn, Now i understands whole story 😂😂😂😂😂

These can guys can solve problems in a week that it would take an average person months or years to solve

Yes I have proved this hypothesis a long time ago, however it is so simple it would be a shame if others could not figure it out without outside help.

@iamsuperior.45

Ай бұрын

If only you could use punctuation as well as you bullshit.

There's a deep lesson here that has nothing to do with mathematics

I could listen to this guy stammer all day.

I think Terence Tao was talking about Collatz Conjecture and not Reimann Hypothesis in this video.

@lPlanetarizado

7 ай бұрын

its from numberphile, i think the question was if he is trying to prove the riemann hypotesis

@victorcossio

5 ай бұрын

Actually that applies for both

@rosiefay7283

4 ай бұрын

@@victorcossio They seem to be alike in that in each case neither proof nor disproof seems to be within easy reach. The difference is that settling the RH would be a great mathematical result; it would either simplify the preconditions of numerous other results, or else render them moot.

@Grizzly01-vr4pn

Ай бұрын

@@rosiefay7283 A proof of the Collatz conjecture could be just as great. Not because so many other things hinge on it being true or not, but the development of the mathematical tools needed to prove it could be revolutionary.

@ianstopher9111

Ай бұрын

No-one knows what the tools needed for the Collatz conjecture, but it is more likely that the tools for the Riemann hypothesis will have wider application. Same with the 196 problem.

There is always this one dude who will do a free solo on a vertical wall and make impossible possible

I already proved Riemann Hypothesis by multiplying both sides by Zero

Terrence Howard has already proved it

That's why he is smart.

It is also a frustrating problem. It's almost trivially true (Not trivially, it is actually a pretty surprising result! But yeah, you can just take a peek at thr complex plain and say "Yeah, that makes sense"). But as tao said, we just don't have the tools to prove it It is like with polynomials, we "knew" for a long time that there was no quintic. But we needed galois theory (A branch of abstract algebra, very unrelated to polynomials) to actually prove it. We need a new "galois theory" type aproach, coming from a part of math not yet developed

i was born in the year 2000 and after 50 years of hard work i finally solved this problem My proof: Trust me bro

this was kinda the sentiment with mathematicians and p vs np

guys hear me out. leave that proof as an exercise for a reader

@sdoix7418

6 ай бұрын

lmao

Yes, that breakthrough is persistent

But i already solved it yesterday

Each thing has its own time, its up to you to figure out how much, but the longer, the more has been accumulated. 👊👊

Thats so true about podcast because there are several content creators that I’ll skip one of their videos if its over 5 or 10 minutes but that same creator can be on a 1 or 2 hour podcast and I’ll listen to every minute of it intently

@Achill101

4 ай бұрын

It's the opposite for me. Podcasts are often too much talk while videos have the chance to also show what they're talking about, especially in mathematics.

Filthy Frank really turned himself around

It's crazy that such an elaborate answer was given by a random Asian stopped on the street. They really are good at math.

@Delta-xm9cd

29 күн бұрын

He is one of the best mathematician in the world.

@Axiomatic75

29 күн бұрын

@@Delta-xm9cd I know that, just wanted to make a joke. Thanks for ruining it 😉

@calicoesblue4703

6 күн бұрын

Hahaha🤣🤣🤣

I don't even understand Reimann hypothesis or anything from Reimann. 😅

@frankj9270

9 ай бұрын

Reimann sums

@adw1z

8 ай бұрын

Riemann Hypothesis: All non-trivial zeros to the analytic continuation for the domain {s: Re(s) 1} lie on the critical line {s: Re(s) = 1/2} in the critical strip {s: Re(s) in (0,1)}

@alex2005z

7 ай бұрын

​@@adw1zand now in English please

@Felipe_Ribeir0

7 ай бұрын

​@adw1z it is easy to copy and paste this, the meaning of it is the thing.

@adw1z

7 ай бұрын

@@Felipe_Ribeir0 I didn't copy and paste it, I wrote it in my own words - I've given 2 different presentations on the topic to my cohort, so i know what I'm talking about - and will study it again next term in greater detail in a further CA course

His brain is so quick his mouth is lagging behind.

@Physics22KU

21 күн бұрын

His brain is being bottlenecked by his mouth.

@UnknownString88

20 күн бұрын

​​@@Physics22KUthankfully he doesn't need his mouth when he works on math

@maymkn

19 күн бұрын

Doesn't that happen to all of us?

I got this guys, hold my beer.

Maybe the Batman can prove it - we have a math class on our channel.

Answer is e=mc²

@xa-12musk8

4 ай бұрын

QED

Engineers: addicted to numbers. They are satisfied as soon as they get the exact values. Astronomers: also interested in numbers, but they prefer approximated ones. As long as they get the right digits, they are satisfied. Physicists: Obsessed with the beauty of laws. In order to get their favorite equations, they are willing to do reckless approximations. Substituting numbers into equations is engineers' task. Mathematicians: Just need to know if the problem is solvable or not. As soon as they find the problem is (not) solvable, they lose interest.

@calicoesblue4703

6 күн бұрын

What about Inventors???

He talks the way my mother would get mad at me if I do

I think that the more I learn about math history, the more I feel like the greats of the field were exceptions to Tao's general method here. They really were crazy enough to develop new deep tools to solve apparently trivial problems, and they'll take a decade to write that whole paper.

Idk what you heart about me intro to the video...I am the only one?

Great analogy tbh

There's another dark possibility to keep in mind about all of this: Godel's Incompleteness Theorem shows that in any consistent system like mathematics, there will be things that are true, but are not able to be proved. Ever. Is the Riemann Hypothesis an example of this in action? Or are we just waiting for the next Ribet to find a bridge to solving this? I would hope it's the latter. "We will know. We must know."

@zkprintf

5 ай бұрын

What do you mean by "statement P is true" if P cannot be proven nor disproven? Gödel's theorem states that in any complicated enough (I don't remember the exact definition of being complicated enough) system one can express a statement P that cannot be proven and cannot be disproven. There is nothing dark here. The existence of an unmeasurable subset of ℝ is such an example for the ZF system. Now you may add the axiom of choice and build a Vitali set or add the axiom of determinacy and show that all subsets of ℝ are Lebesgue measurable. If the same turns out to be true about the Riemann's hypothesis, we'll just explore what axioms may be added to our system to yield the hypothesis true/false.

@cara-seyun

5 ай бұрын

Fortunately, we know it’s not unprovable, since the Riemann function is analytic

@Huuuuuuue

4 ай бұрын

​@@zkprintfWouldn't a statement like RH being false require the existence of a counterexample, thus making it trivially provable by finding the counterexample? Therefore if the statement is undecidable then it must be true?

@zkprintf

4 ай бұрын

@@Huuuuuuue Well, what you propose sounds intuitive, but it's more complicated than that. The thing about something like the set of real numbers is, it's way too complex (no pun intended). We choose some axiom schemes, rules of inference and try to deduce interesting statements. But dozens of axiom schemes are far too little to describe something like the Real numbers. Matter of fact, if you choose a computational model like the Turing machine you won't be able to compute most of the Real numbers! (One may think of this as: if you choose a language, you won't be able to describe most of the Real numbers). Interestingly, this is a trivial fact: the set of Real numbers is a continuum, while programs/formulas are countable. And the set of Real numbers is not a physical object we can explore using experiments. You don't "grab a set of Real numbers" and start exploring it. You take some assumptions, rules of inference and make conclusions from them. This is a distinction between physics and mathematics needed to be understood. It's not the set that we explore per se (it doesn't exists like physical matter does), it's the statements about the set that we explore. Now let's imagine there is a non-constructive proof there exists a complex number for whom the RH fails. Would that imply there exists a proof that shows an example of such a number to break the RH? No! There are only countable proofs and numbers we can describe. It is not implied that one of them is a counterexample. It may be that none of this countable proofs shows a counterexample yet we proved the RH wrong. If you see a paradox here you view mathematical objects as something they are not. Which is fine, it is not obvious. But building mathematics from ground zero is a problem that has been deeply explored and mostly solved in the 20th century. Reading about the Foundations of Mathematics should clear everything up. Disclaimer: Despite this, the RH itself is proved to be equivalent to another statement about natural numbers that is easily verifiable for any fixed natural number. Thus additional things may be said in this specific case. But this is in no way a trivial fact and is not true for arbitrary hypothesis.

@calicoesblue4703

6 күн бұрын

@@zkprintfI like the disclaimer 😎

I have solved the Riemann Hypothesis using its conjucate as a tool ... ζ(s)=Α(s)*ζ(1-s)..where Α(s)=1 makes all Re(s)=1/2 ... in both s from ζ and A ...done!

Say that analogy to Alex Honnold lol

god bless him

Mountain example - Alex Honnald has entered the room :)

But… if one is a cutting edge math mathematician, what kind of openings could one be waiting for? Wouldn’t he be the one looking for the openings?

@cara-seyun

5 ай бұрын

Nah, that’s for some grad student to figure out, then he can swoop in

No solution is no solution, but management does not want to here that.

Interesting!Liked and subscribed, and hoping for more!

the answer is 42

He simply can´t.

I'm the breakthrough 🤪

In my book I solved this problem 5 years ago

We can just ask Terrence Howard to solve it

if everyone is waiting on someone to build the tools, then who is actually building the tools??

@chlopaczekhula3524

2 ай бұрын

Everyone is building the tools. People are researching mathematical topic everywhere all the time hoping to find some vague connection to the hypothesis. Unfortunately nothing has been found so far.

To understand a mathematician, HE needs to speak plainly. Not us figuring out the maths he speaks. Thank you.

I knyow where da function goes nyull at all times, uwu. I knyow this 'cause I knyow where it doesn't, nyaa~. By subtracting where it is fwom where it isn't, or where it isn't fwom where it is (whichever is biggew), I get a diffewence, or deviation, owo. I use deviations to make cowwective squiggles to push da function fwom a place where it's nyull to a place where it isn't, and getting to a place where it wasn't, it now is, uwu. So, da place where it is, is nyow da place that it wasn't, and it fowwows that da place that it was, is nyow da place that it isn't, owo.

he seems very smart i think he should start to learn math he will be great mathmatician i belive him

NUMBERPHILE VIDEO BTW

Nah, he knows the answer, but he is only waiting that the prize money for solving this problem increases. :)

He makes it sound like ordinary people like I can understand what he means, but in fact I have no real clue. (I have a phd in physics)

I tried.... its as he says it is. Too complex for my brain.

Why won't you be the one to create those breakthroughs?

Proof: Multiply both sides by n. Let's assume n=0, because why not. Lhs=Rhs, Hence proved.

Louis de Branges tried

Congratulations from Cambridge University Open Engage/ UK: 1- Dear Taha Muhammad, Congratulations! Your content "Collatz Sequence" has been approved and is now openly and freely available on Cambridge Open Engage. 2- Dear Taha Muhammad, Congratulations! Your content "Euler Perfect Box" has been approved and is now openly and freely available on Cambridge Open Engage. 3- Dear Taha Muhammad, Congratulations! Your content "Fermat’s Last Theorem" has been approved and is now openly and freely available on Cambridge Open Engage.

Ace Mathematics

Imagine him as a molecular biologist and the answer would be exactly the same concerning a single cure for cancers or aging.

Q* : let me introduce myself

@andrei1860

6 ай бұрын

No

@alepho4089

3 ай бұрын

You are so lost.😂😂😂😂

I feel if anyone he’d have a chance to prove it

Unless...

You ripped this straight from a numberphile video…lazy and cheap

This man is a genius at maths i think hes Oxford uni

@nathan87

2 ай бұрын

UCLA, not Oxford.

I will solve this conjecture

Its ok to admit that you cannot solve it - not about the tools. They were saying the same thing about Poincare conjecture, until Perelman came along

@calicoesblue4703

6 күн бұрын

Lol, Facts💯💯💯

@abolimhamane7159

6 күн бұрын

the poincare conjecture was solved AFTER the tools were invented. He's the greatest mathematician currently alive, he could prove the Riemann Hypothesis if he had the tools required.

@calicoesblue4703

5 күн бұрын

@@abolimhamane7159 Wrong the tools had already been there before Perelman solved it.

@abolimhamane7159

5 күн бұрын

@@calicoesblue4703 Thats... what I said. The tools were created before he solved it as he needed the tools to solve it. The tools required to prove the Poincare Conjecture had been around when Perelman proved the conjecture. In the case of the Riemann Hypothesis, however, we don't have the tools required. That's the difference between the Poincare conjecture when it was proven and the Riemann Hypothesis today.

I can provide a simplified and conceptual overview of a hypothetical proof for the Riemann Hypothesis, although it should be noted that constructing an actual proof for this famous unsolved problem in number theory requires rigorous mathematical expertise and may require the collaboration of leading mathematicians. The Riemann Hypothesis is a complex and longstanding problem that has eluded resolution for over a century. Nevertheless, a highly abstract and technical proof for an open problem of this magnitude requires extensive mathematical research, advanced insight, and thorough peer review. This outline is purely illustrative and does not constitute a formal and rigorous proof. Hypothetical Overview of a Proof for the Riemann Hypothesis: 1. Definition of the Riemann Zeta Function: Begin by introducing the Riemann zeta function and its significance in number theory, focusing on its properties and connection to the distribution of prime numbers. 2. Introduction of the Riemann Hypothesis: Clearly state the hypothesis, which asserts that all non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function lie on the critical line Re(s) = 1/2, where s = σ + i*t denotes a complex number. 3. Foundation in Complex Analysis: Establish the mathematical framework for analyzing the zeta function using tools from complex analysis, particularly the study of the zeta function's behavior in the complex plane. 4. Utilization of Analytic Methods: Demonstrate the application of analytic techniques, such as the functional equation of the zeta function and the study of its zeros and poles, to investigate the behavior of the zeta function on the critical line. 5. Establishment of Conjectured Properties: Present a rigorous argument based on established mathematical reasoning and theorems, demonstrating that the properties and distribution of the zeros on the critical line satisfy the conjectured conditions outlined in the Riemann Hypothesis. 6. Addressing Potential Counterexamples: Consider and refute potential counterexamples or scenarios that could disprove the hypothesis, demonstrating the universality and non-existence of exceptions. 7. Peer Review and Verification: Subject the proof to thorough peer review by experts in the field of number theory and related areas to validate its rigor and logical soundness. This outline provides a hypothetical portrayal of the logical and mathematical structure that a proof for the Riemann Hypothesis would need to encompass. However, constructing a formal proof for the Riemann Hypothesis is an intricate and monumental task that remains an ongoing endeavor within the mathematical community.

Just use the well ordering principle or something 😂

Comprate una dímelo y unos tacos químicos para ir poniendo anillas

Is it generally accepted as true?

Leave it alone

Sometimes the tools are ALREADY there. You just have to figure out which ones they are.

@AniketKumar-lw6su

6 ай бұрын

Many times these tools are from completely seperate fields, which makes it so someone can't use them unless they are very well versed in both the fields

@calicoesblue4703

6 ай бұрын

Well said😎👍 The tools are there already.

C'mon guys, it's easy. We just need to understand prime numbers: 3,5,7 .... 11,13 .....,29,31. Don't you see that they are separated by a difference of 2 ??? Just LOOK AT IT. They have a very regular pattern. 3*5 = 15 and 3*7 = 21. 21-15 = 6 = 2*3 WHICH ARE THE FIRST TWO PRIME NUMBERS. Stop being silly. Prime numbers are the best thing ever. They are even more regular than the real numbers!!!

@loganpockrus6882

Ай бұрын

You have not demonstrated a pattern which holds for all prime numbers, just a very small number of them. Please, go ahead and prove that this pattern generalizes to all prime numbers. Also, the difference between 3 and 2 is 1, which is not a multiple of two. In general, given a prime number p, p - 2 is not a multiple of two (except when p = 2). So, no, not every pair of prime numbers is separated by a multiple of two. Finally, for any two prime numbers p and q where p and q are both greater than 2, clearly p and q are odd numbers. The difference between two odd numbers is an even number, which is trivial to prove. Hence, the difference between p and q is a multiple of two. So, the property you have identified has nothing to do with primes - it comes down to the difference of odd numbers being even.

@jan861

Ай бұрын

@@loganpockrus6882 Sorry, I thought my trolling was obvious. Please don't try to understand what I wrote. You might get permanent drain bamage. :D

@loganpockrus6882

Ай бұрын

@jan861 lol, my bad! Sometimes, I find it hard to read the tone of a comment online

@TwoWordsMosDef911

Ай бұрын

⁠​⁠@@loganpockrus6882average weezer fan

freebooted from numberphile, shame on you :(

Maths is just really optimised speed running

@PROtoss987

7 күн бұрын

cringe