Support me on Patreon! patreon.com/vcubingx Join my discord server! discord.gg/Kj8QUZU What's a vcubingx video without errors? At 1:54 it should be "Q - P = 1" instead of "P - Q = 1" At 3:04 it should be "Converges" instead of "Coverges"
It is intuitive to feel that primes have structure. Using Euler and Euclid, Reimann subjected this intuition to rigorous analysis.. He got further than anyone else and left a great legacy. This is a fantastic video, unless you are a prime number, hiding out there in integer space somewhere. In which case you should be worried, because soon your number will be up!
Of course prime numbers have a structure. Just think about using Eratosthenes' sieve to generate a list of prime numbers. The process has a clearly discernible pattern and a structure to it, it's just that the outcome is hard to predict.
Incredibly high quality video. In those 16 minutes you went on such a structured clear and deep route into a topic in a way that most other popular mathematics channels never will.
I'm only 5 minutes in but already have to comment! I love your explanation of the Euler Product formula, it seems like it would be intimidating to derive given its connection to the Zeta function but you did it beautifully
This the best Riemann hypothesis video till date...it take from first basic prime theorem to non-trivial zeroes of zeta function, and this video is not to complicated , I loved it.
i think euclid's theorem works like this (noting this corrects the slight mistake in the video where it suggests that P - Q = 1 at 2:02): - assume there is a finite number of primes - then there exists a number P which is the product of this finite set of primes - consider a number Q = P + 1 - by definition, Q is either prime or non-prime - CASE 1: if Q is prime, then P is NOT the product of all primes (because Q = P + 1 implies that Q > P and no number greater than P can be a factor of P) - hence, Q being prime leads to a contradiction - CASE 2: if Q is NOT prime, then we should be able to factor Q as a product of primes (in the manner demonstrated for 30 earlier in the video) - let one of Q's prime factors be the prime number p - recalling that P is the product of ALL primes, p must also be a prime factor of P - therefore p divides both P and Q - i THINK there's a theorem which says that it follows that p must also divide Q - P (e.g. think of 3 as a prime factor of both 9 and 15 which leads us to know that 3 is also a prime factor of 15 - 9 = 6). - by rearranging the original equation, we find that Q - P = 1. hence p should divide 1 by this logic. - as the video-maker then explains, no number divides 1, so p cannot divide 1 either - hence, assuming Q being non-prime led to a contradiction - therefore, the original assumption that there is a finite set of primes must be false - therefore, the set of primes is infinite
You can arrive at a contradiction in the second part directly from the ring axioms. By the definition of divides, p|Q implies there is an integer a, such that Q=pa, and similarly an integer b, such that P=pb. Then Q-P=pa-pb=p(a-b) (by distributivity), and p|Q-P=1 by the definition of divides (a-b is an integer by the existence of an inverse and closure under addition). Integers are rings, and this works under it.
I appreciate this video, I’ve always been confused as to how the zeta function relates to primes but you laid it out pretty solidly. I feel like that section would benefit from more clearly explained math but I understand it.
Thanks man, I didn’t know about the approximation of the prime counting function and I loved the way you explained it, it’s my first time in your channel and I’ll proceed to watch your other videos, great work
Thanks! I was specifically looking for a video that directly explained the relationship between the prime counting function and Reimann zeta function zeros. This video did exactly that!
Dude, this made me understand stuff, like I don't even care about all this.. but this made me learn new stuff and you made it easy for casual viewers like me. Thanks.
Big fan of the channel, came from 3B1B. Just some constructive criticism: I've watched quite a few of your videos btw. Whenever you're going through the steps of some proof or result, the sudden animation that replaces the previous expression is very confusing. It's hard for the brain and the eyes to follow along with so many changes happening simultaneously, so if you animate the steps one at a time with continuous frames rather than discrete frames, I think it would be a lot easier to follow along. Maybe you could try presenting videos to a friend and have them follow along; they could point out the points of their confusion so you can fix them before posting the vids. It's just hard for visual learners (at least me) to follow along sometimes. Thanks, and I love your work otherwise!
Most of the math shown here, i learn it on my first semester of the first year of college(computer science). What i find interesting in math is that if you want to be good at it, you need to be good at every part of it: ecuations, trigonometry, integrals, etc.
that's what i absolutely love about it. its all interconnected in such an interesting way.. sadly you also have to be smart to fully comprehend everything in it :(
@@finnmertens. no that is a myth ! all you need is the motivation. The people we perceive as "smart" in mathematics are largely that way because they had the motivation to learn. I wont deny there are definitely anomalies that are prodigious right off the bat, but those people are the overwhelming minority. Most mathematicians are not prodigious from the start, but ALL of them were fascinated enough to learn it and eventually BECOME great at it.
p should divide P and Q as Q is made up of primes like p And P is product of such primes Therefore p should divide P-Q, means it should divide 1, which is not possible for any prime p, hence Q is divisible by some prime not in the product of P, hence it would bigger than all the primes present in P, hence number of primes cannot be finite. Hope you understood 😁
@@chirayu_jain But what does "made up of primes" mean? Composite number or also numbers that are primes added or subtracted with potential exponents? Coprimes of course won't divide one another without remainders or fractions but what's the one there for if primes are at least 2 apart except 2 and 3?
@@chirayu_jain "p divides P, and p divides Q, therefore p divides Q-P" I think there's a missing step there. It's not self-evidently obvious why that would be.
So in other words, the prime counting function can use the Reimann-zeta function to predict the values of prime numbers, but only as the number of zeroes tends to infinity. Problem is, it's not proven that all these zeros are at Re(x)=0.5.
Very cool! Sometimes tho, the things you've shown were too complex for me to follow along, so I had to grab a pencil and paper and really think about it, but in the end I think that is a good thing! Thanks for forcing me to actually do something :D
I’ve found a function which the line is vaguely close to the line of prime numbers (like you go up on the y axis every time x= a prime number) 12(square root(x+30))^0.7-38 It’s very vaguely resembling
Video is excellent. Warbling music can induce nausea, unless you are tone-deaf perhaps. It makes listening to the video physically painful. What a shame considering how amazing the rest of the video is.
lets say decryption is n times more difficult than encryption, if decryption becomes easier our abilty to encrypt data becomes easier too, thus decryption will be around n times harder than decryption again. Unless we have the ability to predict the future, which seems imposible.
about primes and the zeta function: consider the x funciton f(x)=1/n*n^(1/2+n*ni), the prime numbers when considered n = prime will give alternated sings for the sin(f(x). and every integer z number will lead to sin(x)=x , a special class of numbers that i called misiec´s zeta complex numbers, as i have not found no reference about the numbers that respect the squeeze theorem. do a wolphram alpha for the plot you will see how interesting the behavior of the graph.consider sqrt (-1) instead of i in ni.
for challenge 2 i think its more fun to derive the gamma function: consider: ∫exp(-at)dt where a is positive and the bounds of integration are from 0 to infinity. its easy to evaluate this integral to get that it equals 1/a. so: ∫exp(-at)dt = 1/a differentiate both sides wrt a: ∫-t exp(-at)dt = -1/a^2 ∫t exp(-at)dt = 1/a^2 differentiate both sides again: ∫t^2 exp(-at)dt = 1*2/a^3 in general, after differentiating n times: ∫t^n exp(-at)dt = (1*2*3*4*...*n)/a^(n+1) = n!/a^(n+1) just setting a=1 we get: ∫t^n exp(-t)dt = n!
Very nice video. I have a question. The curve @15:30 looks like steps, can there be a smooth curve going through the primes? Such that one can ask what is the 2.5th prime.
Yes, that is the Riemann R function. RiemannR(4.18142) = 2.50000 Some examples: Pi(10) = 4, RiemannR (10) = 4.56458 Pi(100) = 25, RiemannR (100) = 25.662 Pi(1000) = 169, RiemannR (1000) = 168.36 Pi(10000) = 1229, RiemannR (10000) = 1226.93 Pi(100000) = 9592, RiemannR (100000) = 9587.43 the error is on the order of √x/ln(x)
@@ckq Thanks for sharing this. So as I understand, xth prime would be RiemannRInverse(x). And still this won't be exact right? Since RiemannR itself doesnt exactly match the prime counting function.
Its funny. I learned math via Euler and Ramanujan so when encountering the sequence definition of series in an analysis text I was shook. A few years later and I primarily think about series in terms of their sequence definition. Computational utility eclipsed by generality, I blame my study of functional analysis lol. Going to study Euler after learning the basics of Algebraic Topology from Munkres. It will be nice to go back to the Eulerian view of function.
As for Euclid's proof, it can be paraphrased more simply: the list of primes is endless because the lowest factor greater than 1 of p!+1 must be a prime number and must be greater than p. (Remember that a prime is a factor of itself.) This is not a 'proof by contradiction'. It is a simple direct proof.
i wonder what will the explicit formula give for negative and complex numbers. i also think there is a formula to convert prime count to an actual corresponding prime number.
The error gets lower and the counting function improves due to we have to enter prime numbers in the formula. So that's reminds me the same problem that we have with prime representing constants.
Very nice presentation connecting the dots between key concepts. I don't see how a counting function (the number of primes less than x) can have a continuous function predicting its value. But your presentation connected the dots for me ; I am P vs NP solver and Riemann's Hypothesis is curious indeed
Now, after this video, I read up on Golden Ratio - Britannica gives a lucid explanation and Fibonacci and now I'm clearer what is being attempted and the role(s) played by Golden Ratio. I'll reach Riemann's Hypothesis later; right now the highest priority is SARS CoV-2 and polymaths
@@kam1470 in reference to your Question 'is it possible'... If you could definitively say it's not possible, then you'd be proving the zeta function is the best we can ever hope for... Right?
My recollection is that the Riemann formula for the error term does _not_ depend on the truth of the Riemann hypothesis. The formula is true regardless; the hypothesis in merely an observation of where the zeros needed for the formula will be found.
At 1:25, shouldn't the text read "all prime numbers" rather than "every single prime number"? Otherwise, how would you define the product of a single number?
There is a very interesting recent research book that have miraculously answered almost all the questions concerning Prime numbers, it is available on Amazon by the name of: THE FORMULAS OF NONPRIMES REVEALING ALL THE PRIME NUMBERS
Thanks! I'm not too sure either now that your mention it. I used lowercase pi because Wikipedia uses it - en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime-counting_function
@@vcubingx If Wikipedia uses lowercase _pi,_ that's probably correct, and I retract. Uppercase Pi is used as the multiplication analog of Sigma, that is, the product of a series (where Sigma is the sum of a series). That symbol is also used in the development of Riemann's formula, as you showed, hence my mistake.
There is a guy in RUclips named Sergio fernandez....saying that he has an equation which can tell us how many primes in a given rage....i didn't understand it's true or not? Btw your videos is always awesome keep it up.
Part 1: There are an infinite amount of primes. Because take this: 2 and 3 are primes, right? so you take the square of 3, 9, and calculate the process. Repeat. Also, if there are no primes between one square and the next (which i doubt is possible) until you get to the 'last' primes square, just get 2*3*5*7*11*... until the last prime plus 1. That will be a prime.
Consider this: instead of looking only at the distribution of the prime counting function, EXPAND the prime counting function to look at numbers with N prime factors (where 1 has 0, primes have 1, and numbers like 4, 6, 9, and 10 have 2). What you will notice is that each line that can be formed by this extension will be "random" like the prime counting function, but getting the sum of the lines will be equal to the input of the functions, X. This means the sum of a set of random sequences is a predictable sequence, and so we can't REALLY say that they're random, can we?
What is the proof of the Riemann explicit formula and its relation with the prime counting function, if the Riemann hypothesis is not proven true yet ?!
Support me on Patreon! patreon.com/vcubingx
Join my discord server! discord.gg/Kj8QUZU
What's a vcubingx video without errors?
At 1:54 it should be "Q - P = 1" instead of "P - Q = 1"
At 3:04 it should be "Converges" instead of "Coverges"
We're humans, don't worry :). I loved your video and animation, I didn't the primes were so amazing! Keep it up!
5:45 Gauß don‘t show he supposed and Dirchlet to.
Fun fact he supposed that with the Age of 15 with no Computer .
P - Q = 1 is also fine 😂
vcubingx how do you animate the text like in your video???
Same as 3blue1brown
A very good teacher who is spreading knowledge for free --- a noble deed!
You’re almost like a spiritual successor to 3Blue1Brown. Keep going, your videos are beautiful.
I honestly thought that beginning is fragmet of 3b1b video :0
He uses his Animation script
Besides using the same drawing tool, he does not explain nearly as fine as 3B1B.
@@Ucedo95 and he has a very thick and hard to understand indian accent.
As a statistician, I twitched when I heard ‘when the p-value is greater than 1’.
f1f1s uppercase P or lowercase p?
well he is doing real math here so it's ok.
(just kidding ;) )
@@tofu8676 stfu you look like a girl
Then 0 and 1 are prime or composite?
🤣🤣🤣
It is intuitive to feel that primes have structure. Using Euler and Euclid, Reimann subjected this intuition to rigorous analysis.. He got further than anyone else and left a great legacy. This is a fantastic video, unless you are a prime number, hiding out there in integer space somewhere. In which case you should be worried, because soon your number will be up!
Of course prime numbers have a structure. Just think about using Eratosthenes' sieve to generate a list of prime numbers. The process has a clearly discernible pattern and a structure to it, it's just that the outcome is hard to predict.
Incredibly high quality video. In those 16 minutes you went on such a structured clear and deep route into a topic in a way that most other popular mathematics channels never will.
Thanks!
I'm only 5 minutes in but already have to comment! I love your explanation of the Euler Product formula, it seems like it would be intimidating to derive given its connection to the Zeta function but you did it beautifully
thank you so much!
确实，这是个很直观的推导，虽然并不严格
This the best Riemann hypothesis video till date...it take from first basic prime theorem to non-trivial zeroes of zeta function, and this video is not to complicated , I loved it.
Your channel is hidden goldmine. Underrated!!!
I dont know, but your style is like 3B1B's
I use the same animation engine as him (which he made)
@@herrmarx973 manim
@@herrmarx973 Xd
@@vcubingxwhat engine he uses
@alien3200 He uses manim
i think euclid's theorem works like this (noting this corrects the slight mistake in the video where it suggests that P - Q = 1 at 2:02):
- assume there is a finite number of primes
- then there exists a number P which is the product of this finite set of primes
- consider a number Q = P + 1
- by definition, Q is either prime or non-prime
- CASE 1: if Q is prime, then P is NOT the product of all primes (because Q = P + 1 implies that Q > P and no number greater than P can be a factor of P)
- hence, Q being prime leads to a contradiction
- CASE 2: if Q is NOT prime, then we should be able to factor Q as a product of primes (in the manner demonstrated for 30 earlier in the video)
- let one of Q's prime factors be the prime number p
- recalling that P is the product of ALL primes, p must also be a prime factor of P
- therefore p divides both P and Q
- i THINK there's a theorem which says that it follows that p must also divide Q - P (e.g. think of 3 as a prime factor of both 9 and 15 which leads us to know that 3 is also a prime factor of 15 - 9 = 6).
- by rearranging the original equation, we find that Q - P = 1. hence p should divide 1 by this logic.
- as the video-maker then explains, no number divides 1, so p cannot divide 1 either
- hence, assuming Q being non-prime led to a contradiction
- therefore, the original assumption that there is a finite set of primes must be false
- therefore, the set of primes is infinite
Thanks for this!
@@vcubingx thank you for making the amazing videos!
@@mohsenardalan8934 ah, great - thank you!
You can arrive at a contradiction in the second part directly from the ring axioms. By the definition of divides, p|Q implies there is an integer a, such that Q=pa, and similarly an integer b, such that P=pb. Then Q-P=pa-pb=p(a-b) (by distributivity), and p|Q-P=1 by the definition of divides (a-b is an integer by the existence of an inverse and closure under addition). Integers are rings, and this works under it.
Your video editing skills are really good!
I appreciate this video, I’ve always been confused as to how the zeta function relates to primes but you laid it out pretty solidly. I feel like that section would benefit from more clearly explained math but I understand it.
100%, this video is an old work of mine and I really wanna re make it in the future
Maybe the best video on the topic I've seen yet. Nicely done!
best video that explains the background but also covers different aspects of Riemann function and primes. but have you or anyone found a pattern yet ?
Good work, expanding on 3B1B while giving credit. You defiantly add significantly to 3B1B's phenomenal presentation.
The pattern to prime numbers is that they are prime
The primes here are indeed made out of primes
please head to collect your 1M
hmmm yes, the floor is made out of floor...
The internet remains undefeated.
*BIGBRAIN*
Brilliant video- thank you. You've given an explanation for a number of facts that I was aware if, but had not seen any justification for.
I love the way that you perform on Manim, subscribed! I hope you talk about many other interesting topics and stuff
Thanks man, I didn’t know about the approximation of the prime counting function and I loved the way you explained it, it’s my first time in your channel and I’ll proceed to watch your other videos, great work
“Prime numbers are solitary numbers that can only be divided by 1 and itself. It gives me strength” - Someone who achieves heaven
Thanks! I was specifically looking for a video that directly explained the relationship between the prime counting function and Reimann zeta function zeros. This video did exactly that!
I'm on shock, I didn't know the primes were so amazing!!
Wait until you get in to the spirals in prime numbers, the Fibonacci sequence, the fabric of reality......
Honestly, this is the best video on the riemann hypothesis I have ever seen
Dude, this made me understand stuff, like I don't even care about all this.. but this made me learn new stuff and you made it easy for casual viewers like me. Thanks.
That's awesome! It's exactly the point of me making the video!
Vừa vào đã nổi cả da gà 藍giọng a Phúc hayyy quá, mong sẽ tiếp tục cover ạ ❤️
Thanks bro it was more clear for me than previous videos about zeta function
Thanks for the EXPLICIT definition (extension) of the Riemann ZETA function for numbers less than 1. It is surprisingly hard to find.
Wow, so honored! "THE FORMULAS OF NONPRIMES REVEALING ALL THE PRIME NUMBERS" was named one of the best new Arithmetic books by BookAuthority!
This video with lofi music is perfect * - *
I... This looks exactly like 3blue1brown...
Huh Neat his engine
I... why do you write like this...
@@Tulanir1 ... I... Don't know...
@@huhneat1076 Ok... fine...
Irony is I clicked this video because I thought it 3B1B
You should make the quote at the beginning last like 3 seconds longer.
good point, I will next time
Big fan of the channel, came from 3B1B. Just some constructive criticism: I've watched quite a few of your videos btw. Whenever you're going through the steps of some proof or result, the sudden animation that replaces the previous expression is very confusing. It's hard for the brain and the eyes to follow along with so many changes happening simultaneously, so if you animate the steps one at a time with continuous frames rather than discrete frames, I think it would be a lot easier to follow along. Maybe you could try presenting videos to a friend and have them follow along; they could point out the points of their confusion so you can fix them before posting the vids. It's just hard for visual learners (at least me) to follow along sometimes. Thanks, and I love your work otherwise!
đón chờ những ca khúc tiếp theo của Phúc, càng nghe càng thích giọng ca của Phúc ❤
Most of the math shown here, i learn it on my first semester of the first year of college(computer science). What i find interesting in math is that if you want to be good at it, you need to be good at every part of it: ecuations, trigonometry, integrals, etc.
that's what i absolutely love about it. its all interconnected in such an interesting way.. sadly you also have to be smart to fully comprehend everything in it :(
@@finnmertens. no that is a myth ! all you need is the motivation. The people we perceive as "smart" in mathematics are largely that way because they had the motivation to learn. I wont deny there are definitely anomalies that are prodigious right off the bat, but those people are the overwhelming minority. Most mathematicians are not prodigious from the start, but ALL of them were fascinated enough to learn it and eventually BECOME great at it.
Thank you
Now I'm not just relaxed but know how to distress in difficult situations
By using the Riemann Zeta Function?
Euclids theorem makes no sense to me, what am I missing? How is P - Q = 1 and why should 'p' divide it?
p should divide P and Q as Q is made up of primes like p
And P is product of such primes
Therefore p should divide P-Q, means it should divide 1, which is not possible for any prime p, hence Q is divisible by some prime not in the product of P, hence it would bigger than all the primes present in P, hence number of primes cannot be finite.
Hope you understood 😁
@@chirayu_jain thanks, I guess what confused me is that P - Q should be -1 since Q is defined to be P + 1
Sorry yeah it should be Q-P and I think @Chirayu Jain's explanation covers it.
@@chirayu_jain But what does "made up of primes" mean? Composite number or also numbers that are primes added or subtracted with potential exponents?
Coprimes of course won't divide one another without remainders or fractions but what's the one there for if primes are at least 2 apart except 2 and 3?
@@chirayu_jain "p divides P, and p divides Q, therefore p divides Q-P"
I think there's a missing step there. It's not self-evidently obvious why that would be.
Loved the video, i am currently reading the music of the primes and this video put it all together beuatifully! Thanks a lot for the content!
So in other words, the prime counting function can use the Reimann-zeta function to predict the values of prime numbers, but only as the number of zeroes tends to infinity. Problem is, it's not proven that all these zeros are at Re(x)=0.5.
Just amazing, I liked the video before watching. BTW how do you get such ideas for making videos?
Very cool! Sometimes tho, the things you've shown were too complex for me to follow along, so I had to grab a pencil and paper and really think about it, but in the end I think that is a good thing! Thanks for forcing me to actually do something :D
Excellent video. Very well explained.
Congrats!
Thank you for linking to *manim* in the description! It's crazy I haven't find about it through 3b1b!!
Damn your manim animations look clean!
The best explanation I've seen of this
i like how u didnt cut the clips where u stumbled. thanks.
"Give calculus a chance" -YT ad -- Finally, a positive message.
I’ve found a function which the line is vaguely close to the line of prime numbers (like you go up on the y axis every time x= a prime number)
12(square root(x+30))^0.7-38 It’s very vaguely resembling
Hey, great video, just found you on my feed!
Thank you so much!
This channel is like the child of 3Blue1Brown. Not because the software used is the same, but because the explanation is good.
Video is excellent. Warbling music can induce nausea, unless you are tone-deaf perhaps. It makes listening to the video physically painful. What a shame considering how amazing the rest of the video is.
Is there any other possible visual other than the 3B1B style?
Finally a worthy heir to 3B1B. Similar calming voice, and technically strong explanations.
Would the person who finds the pattern of primes be legally allowed to reveal it because of the encryption/cryptography implications
yes
lets say decryption is n times more difficult than encryption, if decryption becomes easier our abilty to encrypt data becomes easier too, thus decryption will be around n times harder than decryption again. Unless we have the ability to predict the future, which seems imposible.
@@juliansoto2651 if decrypting became easier wouldnt encrypting become harder?
Yes
Nice and brief retelling of “Prime Obsession”, John Derbyshire’s book.
I've read a bolivian guy just released a formula
AYYYY 10/10 would watch again
about primes and the zeta function: consider the x funciton f(x)=1/n*n^(1/2+n*ni), the prime numbers when considered n = prime will give alternated sings for the sin(f(x). and every integer z number will lead to sin(x)=x , a special class of numbers that i called misiec´s zeta complex numbers, as i have not found no reference about the numbers that respect the squeeze theorem. do a wolphram alpha for the plot you will see how interesting the behavior of the graph.consider sqrt (-1) instead of i in ni.
The pattern is the removaval of patterns (divisible by irreducibles 2,3,5,7, 11, 13, 17, etc is in itself, a pattern....)
for challenge 2 i think its more fun to derive the gamma function:
consider:
∫exp(-at)dt
where a is positive and the bounds of integration are from 0 to infinity. its easy to evaluate this integral to get that it equals 1/a. so:
∫exp(-at)dt = 1/a
differentiate both sides wrt a:
∫-t exp(-at)dt = -1/a^2
∫t exp(-at)dt = 1/a^2
differentiate both sides again:
∫t^2 exp(-at)dt = 1*2/a^3
in general, after differentiating n times:
∫t^n exp(-at)dt = (1*2*3*4*...*n)/a^(n+1) = n!/a^(n+1)
just setting a=1 we get:
∫t^n exp(-t)dt = n!
ni, san, go, nana, ju ichi, ju san, ju nana, ju kyu, niju san...
Very nice video. I have a question. The curve @15:30 looks like steps, can there be a smooth curve going through the primes? Such that one can ask what is the 2.5th prime.
Yes, that is the Riemann R function.
RiemannR(4.18142) = 2.50000
Some examples:
Pi(10) = 4, RiemannR (10) = 4.56458
Pi(100) = 25, RiemannR (100) = 25.662
Pi(1000) = 169, RiemannR (1000) = 168.36
Pi(10000) = 1229, RiemannR (10000) = 1226.93
Pi(100000) = 9592, RiemannR (100000) = 9587.43
the error is on the order of √x/ln(x)
@@ckq Thanks for sharing this. So as I understand, xth prime would be RiemannRInverse(x).
And still this won't be exact right? Since RiemannR itself doesnt exactly match the prime counting function.
Thanks to you and 3b1b , so i understand what makes this hypothesis be very important. Let me go home and prove it.
Glad you liked it!!
Let me know when you finish 😅
Its funny. I learned math via Euler and Ramanujan so when encountering the sequence definition of series in an analysis text I was shook. A few years later and I primarily think about series in terms of their sequence definition. Computational utility eclipsed by generality, I blame my study of functional analysis lol. Going to study Euler after learning the basics of Algebraic Topology from Munkres. It will be nice to go back to the Eulerian view of function.
If we discover that spacetime is quantised, what bearing does that have on the foundations of mathematics ?
Next prime is near P+ln(P) and always will exist a new prime betwen P and P+2ln(P)
How does multiplying by a fraction subtract just one partial sum?
Why did 1/4^s disappear along with 1/3^s?
As for Euclid's proof, it can be paraphrased more simply: the list of primes is endless because the lowest factor greater than 1 of p!+1 must be a prime number and must be greater than p.
(Remember that a prime is a factor of itself.)
This is not a 'proof by contradiction'. It is a simple direct proof.
16:27 I’ll tell you when I find a solution.
i wonder what will the explicit formula give for negative and complex numbers. i also think there is a formula to convert prime count to an actual corresponding prime number.
The last minute is the crescendo!
isnt the formula at 15:20 that of the prime-power counting function sum{p^n}(1/n) ?
The error gets lower and the counting function improves due to we have to enter prime numbers in the formula. So that's reminds me the same problem that we have with prime representing constants.
Very nice presentation connecting the dots between key concepts. I don't see how a counting function (the number of primes less than x) can have a continuous function predicting its value. But your presentation connected the dots for me ; I am P vs NP solver and Riemann's Hypothesis is curious indeed
Now, after this video, I read up on Golden Ratio - Britannica gives a lucid explanation and Fibonacci and now I'm clearer what is being attempted and the role(s) played by Golden Ratio. I'll reach Riemann's Hypothesis later; right now the highest priority is SARS CoV-2 and polymaths
thank you so much for this ♥
Even if there is a pattern for primes, which I doubt, what would be the practicality? Or benefit?
Question: Is it possible that there is a different function that will approximate primes more accurately than Zeta function?
I'd argue, if you could disprove that, then you've already 'solved' the million dollar question.
@@drew-id Andrew, to clarify: You mean, we assume there is only 1 function to approximate primes and it is zeta function? Thanks :)
@@kam1470 in reference to your Question 'is it possible'...
If you could definitively say it's not possible, then you'd be proving the zeta function is the best we can ever hope for... Right?
My recollection is that the Riemann formula for the error term does _not_ depend on the truth of the Riemann hypothesis. The formula is true regardless; the hypothesis in merely an observation of where the zeros needed for the formula will be found.
Very nice video. I can't wait to see how you improve your videos and explanations. Good job, but there's a lot of work to do yet.
Cống hiến hơn nữa trong sự nghiệp của mình. Một lần nữa cảm ơn Đức Phúc và chương trình đã mang đến những giây phút thư giãn này. Mãi yêu!!!❤❤❤
At 1:25, shouldn't the text read "all prime numbers" rather than "every single prime number"? Otherwise, how would you define the product of a single number?
There is a very interesting recent research book that have miraculously answered almost all the questions concerning Prime numbers, it is available on Amazon by the name of: THE FORMULAS OF NONPRIMES REVEALING ALL THE PRIME NUMBERS
I believe the Prime Counting Function Pu(x) uses capital Pi, as opposed to lowercase pi used in circles. Otherwise, nicely explained.
Thanks! I'm not too sure either now that your mention it. I used lowercase pi because Wikipedia uses it - en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime-counting_function
@@vcubingx If Wikipedia uses lowercase _pi,_ that's probably correct, and I retract. Uppercase Pi is used as the multiplication analog of Sigma, that is, the product of a series (where Sigma is the sum of a series). That symbol is also used in the development of Riemann's formula, as you showed, hence my mistake.
log(x) in the final formula (15:24 on video) is log(x) base 10??? or ln(x)???
There is a guy in RUclips named Sergio fernandez....saying that he has an equation which can tell us how many primes in a given rage....i didn't understand it's true or not?
Btw your videos is always awesome keep it up.
11:40 I didn't find any links for this. Can you please write them here?
Part 1: There are an infinite amount of primes. Because take this: 2 and 3 are primes, right? so you take the square of 3, 9, and calculate the process. Repeat. Also, if there are no primes between one square and the next (which i doubt is possible) until you get to the 'last' primes square, just get 2*3*5*7*11*... until the last prime plus 1. That will be a prime.
Maybe matter falls within that 0 to 1. And mostly for half. Maybe trivials are light.
You're Euclid proof is back to front. Q - P = 1 not P - Q =1
Like and subscribed. Really good job, greetings from Chile!
Thanks!
Consider this: instead of looking only at the distribution of the prime counting function, EXPAND the prime counting function to look at numbers with N prime factors (where 1 has 0, primes have 1, and numbers like 4, 6, 9, and 10 have 2). What you will notice is that each line that can be formed by this extension will be "random" like the prime counting function, but getting the sum of the lines will be equal to the input of the functions, X. This means the sum of a set of random sequences is a predictable sequence, and so we can't REALLY say that they're random, can we?
Amazing video! I love math :D
have a look at \left( and
ight in latex @4:26
ight)
03:40 : It may be better to show each step of calculation with the previous one remaining on the top, so we can better understand the operation. Thx !
Very Inserting. Thank you very much!
Okay, I have a bit of a problem understanding proof of Euclid's theorem. Any fellow thoughts on how to grasp it?
At 4:22 you say you subtract it from the "original series" but you don't. You subtract it from the PREVIOUS series.
Theorem: There are no primes between any two consecutive primes.
In your proof for Euclid’s theorem 2:01, you said P - Q = 1 but I think you meant Q - P = 1. Just a heads up.
What is the proof of the Riemann explicit formula and its relation with the prime counting function, if the Riemann hypothesis is not proven true yet ?!