math.answers.com/basic-math/Is_there_a_pattern_for_prime_numbers

Preview meta tags from the math.answers.com website.

Linked Hostnames

8

Thumbnail

Search Engine Appearance

Google

https://math.answers.com/basic-math/Is_there_a_pattern_for_prime_numbers

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

https://math.answers.com/basic-math/Is_there_a_pattern_for_prime_numbers

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

https://math.answers.com/basic-math/Is_there_a_pattern_for_prime_numbers

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
    • title
      Is there a pattern for prime numbers? - Answers
    • charset
      utf-8
    • Content-Type
      text/html; charset=utf-8
    • viewport
      minimum-scale=1, initial-scale=1, width=device-width, shrink-to-fit=no
    • X-UA-Compatible
      IE=edge,chrome=1
  • Open Graph Meta Tags

    7
    • og:image
      https://st.answers.com/html_test_assets/Answers_Blue.jpeg
    • og:image:width
      900
    • og:image:height
      900
    • og:site_name
      Answers
    • og:description
      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.
  • Twitter Meta Tags

    1
    • twitter:card
      summary_large_image
  • Link Tags

    16
    • alternate
      https://www.answers.com/feed.rss
    • apple-touch-icon
      /icons/180x180.png
    • canonical
      https://math.answers.com/basic-math/Is_there_a_pattern_for_prime_numbers
    • icon
      /favicon.svg
    • icon
      /icons/16x16.png

Links

58