Talk:Prime number

Template:Vital article

Deleted

I struck my own comment as it was useless (due to simple sleight of hand of ref) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billymac00 (talk • contribs)

101

In the list of prime number you have 101 as a prime number, this is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theisencouple (talk • contribs)

101 is certainly a prime. See OEIS:A000040 or test it yourself. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Largest known Proth prime

The largest known proth prime in Prime_number#Special-purpose_algorithms_and_the_largest_known_prime is not up-to-date, see also Seventeen or Bust. Due to the protection of the article I can't update it myself. Der Waldkauz (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Der Waldkauz: Thanks. I have updated this and other records.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Prime number (final ?) formula

I think will be time to give a math definition of primes that match as possible the "talking of" definition:

$n\in \mathbb {N^{+}} ;n>2;n=odd;$ is a prime if and only if:

$z=n!/n^{2}=(n-1)!/n\in \mathbb {(Q-N)}$

This definition respect the known one in the main concept of Prime as result of a recursive division, missing just 2.

From $n>4$ the definition fits for all Naturals.

Usinig this definition and 2 algos involving Sums / Product / Fractions and Integer part of..., it's possible to count the primes and given one find the next one. This algos are of course not computable immediately from very little primes due to factorial product, but in theory they give a perfect definition of Primes as well sorted numbers. So pls delete elsewhere the phrase "we actually don't know if primes are well sorted or not...".

Stefano Maruelli — Preceding unsigned comment added by StefanoMaruelli (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. We shouldn't invent a definition not used by any sources. It would also be an odd way to define primes. We are a general encyclopedia and don't need definitions to use pure mathematical notation many readers wouldn't understand. If we did want it then we would formulate the normal definition like that. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The statement is true, not hard to prove, and certainly not as useful as you seem to think. It is no more a "formula" than the usual definition in terms of number of factors. --JBL (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I get no search results on "we actually don't know if primes are well sorted or not...". If it actually says something else then please don't falsify quotes when you refer to text. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2017

Please add in the References section the information about my new book. Please add in the External links section the link-information about my new book (hope this is correct, because this is my first post ....) <ref prime numbers - new results </ref> Karl-Heinz Kuhl (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Karl-Heinz Kuhl (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is not the place to promote your book. References are works that editors have referred to in writing the article. Maybe one day someone will read your book and use as a source for this or another article; until then it should not be added as a reference.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I should like to point the fact that neither the Mathematical Reviews of the AMS nor the Zentralblatt MATH reviewed or indexed this book. In fact both of these most important collections of mathematical reviews credit Mr K-H. Kuhl with zero publication. This raises serious doubts concerning Mr Mr K-H Kuhl expertise in the subject of prime numbers, and concerning the encyclopedic quality of his book. Sapphorain (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Given the 2017 publication date, the absence of a review is not nearly as indicative as you seem to think. (Often my research papers do not appear as a listing for weeks, and their reviews sometimes take months.) Also, this sort of personalization is totally unnecessary, particularly when a perfectly good non-personalized rationale has already been given.--JBL (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree. Even if the book itself is recent, the facts are that (1) the author is credited with zero previous publication on any subject of mathematics, and that (2) this book is a self-publication. Thus I do not agree that the rationale already given is "perfectly good", since it suggests that the book might be used "as a source for this or another article": but this is clearly not so, at least not until it is published by a serious non-paid publishing house. Sapphorain (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

References

using square root of n...

article states

It consists of testing whether n is a multiple of any integer between 2 and the square root of n.

for the number 1,999,999 this is not true... the square root of 1,999,999 is 1414.xxx... but the factors of 1,999,999 are 1657, 71, 17... since 1657 is greater than 1414 then 1,999,999 would be considered prime... but it is not... trust this helps --- 2601:3C5:4202:313D:9D48:94A6:1D00:E135 (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Dan Ellwein2601:3C5:4202:313D:9D48:94A6:1D00:E135 (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3C5:4202:313D:9D48:94A6:1D00:E135 (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)