Science Forums 2

[Don Blazys]

To: Halbower,

Don't mistake the constant: 2.566,543,832,171,388,844,467,529 for the formula.

I don't know a lot about computers, number crunching machines, or calculating devices, but doing it by hand, the above constant returns:

2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, and 59,

before it "breaks down".

However, in theory, if you can calculate the second root ("zero") of the equation (the one involving sin and ln) to an infinite number of decimal places (instead of just the 24 decimal places that I calculated by hand), then that constant will return all of the primes in sequence!

Most hand held calculators are accurate to only about 10 to 14 decimal places, and the computers here at my school can't do much better. That's probably why the largest prime that you were able to generate was only 31. Your machine was simply not powerfull enough.

Anyway, now that my formula is "on line", a lot of very good mathematicians will be checking it using very sophisticated equipment. If it is demonstrated that my formula stops working after some finite number of primes have been generated, then I will be quite surprised, because in my humble opinion, it's simply too beautifull to be a mere "curiosity".

Don.