Science Forums 2

[Don Blazys]

To: Nootropic,

When this formula was first discovered, the empirical evidence seemed very convincing. Since then, it was discovered that the second root of the original equation actually departs from the prime generating "Blazys constant":

2.566543832171388844467529...

at the thirteenth digit while the second root of the revised equation from several posts ago deviates from the "Blazys constant" at the twenty-sixth digit.

Sorry, but there is no "derivation" in that this formula was never derived from any well established principles, but was instead based on what, at the time, appeared to be a very remarkable coincidence between two seemingly unrelated expressions. (From time to time, albeit very rarely, this sort of thing does indeed occur in mathematics, so I felt compelled to share it.)

Thus, this formula really is a "frankenfunction" (what a clever word!), and does indeed come from "nowhere".

That said, it is still the most succsesfull true prime number generating function ever discovered and a remarkable "curio" to boot! (To fully appreciate the degree of difficulty involved, try finding a formula that generates just the first 10 primes in order of magnitude without relying on seives, comparisons or Wilson's theorem.)

Personally, I suspect that the paradigm of defining a "Blazys constant" via some equation, series or algorithm is really the only chance we've got for developing a true prime generating function. However, I'm not expecting another miracle.

Please keep in mind that this is only my "fun thread" (the words "Holy Grail" strongly imply "something that is probably fictional") that I began in order to to offset my far more serious thread entitled "A Mathematical Emergency".

Don.