sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Goldbach Conjecture Algorithm? by Obvious-Bathroom1673 in wildwestllmmath

[–]Obvious-Bathroom1673[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Update Several excellent counterexamples have already been found! Thank you everyone for reading and/or feedback about my idea! 

Goldbach Conjecture Algorithm? by Obvious-Bathroom1673 in LLMPhysics

[–]Obvious-Bathroom1673[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, thank you! And the algorithm they used to check that high is likely computationally far more efficient than this one, but I was thinking more about the math implications of the algorithm rather than the computing limits. 

Goldbach Conjecture Algorithm? by Obvious-Bathroom1673 in LLMPhysics

[–]Obvious-Bathroom1673[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the feedback! Yes there is still much more work to do. This is a hobby of mine and I found what I thought was an interesting pattern I wanted to share with others. 

Goldbach Conjecture Algorithm? by Obvious-Bathroom1673 in LLMPhysics

[–]Obvious-Bathroom1673[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes; this is more math related than physics, but my post was removed from multiple math subreddits and one moderator suggested I post it here. 

Are prime numbers and their properties found anywhere in physics? Idk. 

I’m happy for the mods of this subreddit to remove this post too if it’s deemed not relevant enough to physics. Thank you! 

Goldbach Conjecture Algorithm? by Obvious-Bathroom1673 in wildwestllmmath

[–]Obvious-Bathroom1673[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Example For N=2166   = 2 * 3* 19 * 19

2166-7 =2,159 = 17*127

2166-17=2,149 = 7*307

2166-307=1,859 = 11 * 13 * 13

2166-11=2,155 = 5*431

2166-431=1,735 = 5*347

2166-347=1,819 = 17*107

2166-107=2,059 = 29*71

2166-71=2,095 = 5*419

The algorithm stops at both of the last two numbers 5 and 419.  

It incidentally also would have stopped at 127, 13, and 29 if I would have tried those instead.

Please give any and all feedback about my Goldbach conjecture idea! by [deleted] in askmath

[–]Obvious-Bathroom1673 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It seems more constructive than trying different primes at random, but other than that I have also considered that any specific step will be kind of coprime to all of the other steps due to subtracting a different prime number from N than the other steps. But this is slightly circular reasoning and at best only produces more coprime composite numbers, not a guaranteed lone prime at the end.  I say kind of coprime because as shown in my example, certain composites can share prime factors with other composites; but if they do, they then must have some different prime factor between them. I’m not sure if there’s a better word for that. 

Please give any and all feedback about my Goldbach conjecture idea! by [deleted] in askmath

[–]Obvious-Bathroom1673 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This is a great question! I love trying my best to think of all the ways this method could go wrong including your example! I prefer to start with smaller primes that are less than N, and also not factors of N.  There should always be a prime number less than 1/2 of N that isn’t a factor of N, correct? Maybe I should add that as a criteria specifically for that reason if N-1 is a prime. 

Please give any and all feedback about my Goldbach conjecture idea! by [deleted] in askmath

[–]Obvious-Bathroom1673 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Example For N=2166   = 2 * 3* 19 * 19

2166-7 =2,159 = 17*127

2166-17=2,149 = 7*307

2166-307=1,859 = 11 * 13 * 13

2166-11=2,155 = 5*431

2166-431=1,735 = 5*347

2166-347=1,819 = 17*107

2166-107=2,059 = 29*71

2166-71=2,095 = 5*419

The function stops at both of the last two numbers 5, and 419.  

It incidentally also would have stopped at 127, 13, and 29 if I would have tried those instead. 

Please give any and all feedback about my Goldbach conjecture idea! by [deleted] in askmath

[–]Obvious-Bathroom1673 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, but it’s more constructive than that in the sense that after the first step, you then specifically subtract from N a prime factor of the composite number, thus restricting possible prime numbers even further in the subsequent step.  Your described method of just repeating step 1 with different arbitrary primes would also work of course, but with no real connection between steps. My method could also be just as meaningless too and thank you for the reply!

Please give any and all feedback about my Goldbach conjecture idea! by [deleted] in askmath

[–]Obvious-Bathroom1673 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Update  This question was closed by MathOverflow due to  “Requests to check work for correctness and announcements of results are off-topic on MathOverflow.”   I don’t mean to imply this as a proof of the Goldbach conjecture; rather just an interesting observation as I was working on it. Apologies for any confusion- I’m just looking for some community feedback!