17 Aug '06 13:05>
I have conclusive proof that no prime is divisible by 927. I checked the first dozen or so.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI'll say it again.
Of the 100 first primes only one is even. That makes 1/100=1%. Right?
Does this mean that the more primes we have, the less fraction of even primes we get?
Am I right so far?
Originally posted by ThudanBlunderNope I know exactly what I mean. Page 92 of Dr. Riemann's Zeros explains it better than I can but I'll try.
100% sounds like 'all' to me.
If 'all' > 100% how many percent is it?
Perhaps you mean something else.
Originally posted by XanthosNZPerhaps you mean that proving something is true for an infinite number of values is not necessarily the same as proving something is true for all values (which to me means 100% of values by definition).
Nope I know exactly what I mean. Page 92 of Dr. Riemann's Zeros explains it better than I can but I'll try.
The percentage of X that satisfy Y is defined as P(X=Y)*100 or if we define y as the set of X that satisfies Y then 100*y/X.
Now if X is infinite and y is finite then the percentage is 0 (finite/infinite). Therefore 100% of X does not satify Y e ...[text shortened]... 100% of n. That is not a proof of it however. It was later proved by Andrew Wiles in 1996.
Originally posted by ThudanBlunderYes it is possible to prove something is true for an infinite number of values but that is once again different.
Perhaps you mean that proving something is true for an infinite number of values is not necessarily the same as proving something is true for all values (which to me means 100% of values by definition).
Originally posted by royalchickenNobody was saying he is wrong. I was merely asking him to clarify what he meant.
Xanthos is correct; Please stop.
Originally posted by XanthosNZActually, I have yet to see 100% defined 'in a mathematical sense' rather than the usual one. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction? Certainly the concepts you discuss do not require such a definition.
That would make you wrong in a mathmatical sense.
Originally posted by FabianFnasNot every prime is odd, since 2 is not odd and prime.
If I may continue:
Of the first thousand, million and billion primes there are progressively smaller and smaller relative amount of primes that are even.
The formula is 1/n is smaller when n is being larger. Right?
XanthosNZ knows what I'm aiming at. He's using a preemptive strike while he tries to prove that I am wrong. But he does it at a mathemat his poser, until the twist appear.
For the rest of us - does my reasoning make any sense?
Originally posted by XanthosNZBe warned that the contents of 'popular maths' books are quite often misleading, and sometimes simply wrong.
Nope I know exactly what I mean. Page 92 of Dr. Riemann's Zeros explains it better than I can but I'll try.
The percentage of X that satisfy Y is defined as P(X=Y)*100 or if we define y as the set of X that satisfies Y then 100*y/X.
Now if X is infinite and y is finite then the percentage is 0 (finite/infinite). Therefore 100% of X does not satify Y e ...[text shortened]... .
I realize it may seem contradictory and a little pedantic but in math we get that a lot.