math.answers.com/basic-math/Is_there_a_pattern_for_prime_numbers
Preview meta tags from the math.answers.com website.
Linked Hostnames
8- 29 links tomath.answers.com
- 23 links towww.answers.com
- 1 link totwitter.com
- 1 link towww.facebook.com
- 1 link towww.instagram.com
- 1 link towww.pinterest.com
- 1 link towww.tiktok.com
- 1 link towww.youtube.com
Thumbnail

Search Engine Appearance
Is there a pattern for prime numbers? - Answers
So far, the best and most general pattern found is that, over three, all prime numbers are of the form 6n +/- 1. In other words, they're either 6n - 1 or 6n + 1, for some n. Here is why this is true. We could do a proof by contradiction and assume that all the natural numbers greater than or equal to 5 are prime. (of course they are not!) We start with5 which is 6-1. The numbers would then be 6n - 1, 6n, 6n + 1, 6n + 2, 6n + 3, 6n + 4, and 6n + 5 for some natural number n. If it is 6n, then the number is divisible by 6. When it is 6n + 2, the number is the same as 2(3n+1) so it is divisible by 2. Consider 6n + 3, the number is 3(2n+1), so it is divisible by 3. Last look at 6n + 4, the number is divisible by 2, for it's 2(3n + 2). Therefore all numbers of the form 6n, 6n + 2, 6n + 3, and 6n + 4 are not prime. The only possibilities this leaves are 6n - 1 and 6n + 1. This entire thing can be written more elegantly with congruences, but the goal here was simplicity! There are many other patterns in primes. See the attached link to see them.
Bing
Is there a pattern for prime numbers? - Answers
So far, the best and most general pattern found is that, over three, all prime numbers are of the form 6n +/- 1. In other words, they're either 6n - 1 or 6n + 1, for some n. Here is why this is true. We could do a proof by contradiction and assume that all the natural numbers greater than or equal to 5 are prime. (of course they are not!) We start with5 which is 6-1. The numbers would then be 6n - 1, 6n, 6n + 1, 6n + 2, 6n + 3, 6n + 4, and 6n + 5 for some natural number n. If it is 6n, then the number is divisible by 6. When it is 6n + 2, the number is the same as 2(3n+1) so it is divisible by 2. Consider 6n + 3, the number is 3(2n+1), so it is divisible by 3. Last look at 6n + 4, the number is divisible by 2, for it's 2(3n + 2). Therefore all numbers of the form 6n, 6n + 2, 6n + 3, and 6n + 4 are not prime. The only possibilities this leaves are 6n - 1 and 6n + 1. This entire thing can be written more elegantly with congruences, but the goal here was simplicity! There are many other patterns in primes. See the attached link to see them.
DuckDuckGo
Is there a pattern for prime numbers? - Answers
So far, the best and most general pattern found is that, over three, all prime numbers are of the form 6n +/- 1. In other words, they're either 6n - 1 or 6n + 1, for some n. Here is why this is true. We could do a proof by contradiction and assume that all the natural numbers greater than or equal to 5 are prime. (of course they are not!) We start with5 which is 6-1. The numbers would then be 6n - 1, 6n, 6n + 1, 6n + 2, 6n + 3, 6n + 4, and 6n + 5 for some natural number n. If it is 6n, then the number is divisible by 6. When it is 6n + 2, the number is the same as 2(3n+1) so it is divisible by 2. Consider 6n + 3, the number is 3(2n+1), so it is divisible by 3. Last look at 6n + 4, the number is divisible by 2, for it's 2(3n + 2). Therefore all numbers of the form 6n, 6n + 2, 6n + 3, and 6n + 4 are not prime. The only possibilities this leaves are 6n - 1 and 6n + 1. This entire thing can be written more elegantly with congruences, but the goal here was simplicity! There are many other patterns in primes. See the attached link to see them.
General Meta Tags
22- titleIs there a pattern for prime numbers? - Answers
- charsetutf-8
- Content-Typetext/html; charset=utf-8
- viewportminimum-scale=1, initial-scale=1, width=device-width, shrink-to-fit=no
- X-UA-CompatibleIE=edge,chrome=1
Open Graph Meta Tags
7- og:imagehttps://st.answers.com/html_test_assets/Answers_Blue.jpeg
- og:image:width900
- og:image:height900
- og:site_nameAnswers
- og:descriptionSo far, the best and most general pattern found is that, over three, all prime numbers are of the form 6n +/- 1. In other words, they're either 6n - 1 or 6n + 1, for some n. Here is why this is true. We could do a proof by contradiction and assume that all the natural numbers greater than or equal to 5 are prime. (of course they are not!) We start with5 which is 6-1. The numbers would then be 6n - 1, 6n, 6n + 1, 6n + 2, 6n + 3, 6n + 4, and 6n + 5 for some natural number n. If it is 6n, then the number is divisible by 6. When it is 6n + 2, the number is the same as 2(3n+1) so it is divisible by 2. Consider 6n + 3, the number is 3(2n+1), so it is divisible by 3. Last look at 6n + 4, the number is divisible by 2, for it's 2(3n + 2). Therefore all numbers of the form 6n, 6n + 2, 6n + 3, and 6n + 4 are not prime. The only possibilities this leaves are 6n - 1 and 6n + 1. This entire thing can be written more elegantly with congruences, but the goal here was simplicity! There are many other patterns in primes. See the attached link to see them.
Twitter Meta Tags
1- twitter:cardsummary_large_image
Link Tags
16- alternatehttps://www.answers.com/feed.rss
- apple-touch-icon/icons/180x180.png
- canonicalhttps://math.answers.com/basic-math/Is_there_a_pattern_for_prime_numbers
- icon/favicon.svg
- icon/icons/16x16.png
Links
58- https://math.answers.com
- https://math.answers.com/basic-math/0.2_as_a_decimal
- https://math.answers.com/basic-math/33_percent_as_a_decimal_and_a_fraction
- https://math.answers.com/basic-math/A_number_that_has_factors_other_than_1_and_itself
- https://math.answers.com/basic-math/How_do_you_write_30000_as_a_decimal