JSH: Random distributions and prime numbers
in [Physics]
|
From: John Blackpool on 8 Feb 2010 04:36 On 7 Feb, 18:26, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > On 07/02/2010 18:06, JSH wrote: > > > Here is what you get with the first 23 primes greater than 3: > > > 5 mod 3 = 2, 7 mod 3 = 1, 11 mod 3 = 2, 13 mod 3 = 1, 17 mod 3 = 2, > > 19 mod 3 = 1, 23 mod 3 = 2, 29 mod 3 = 2, 31 mod 3 = 1, 37 mod 3 = 1, > > 41 mod 3 = 2, 43 mod 3 = 1, 47 mod 3 = 2, 53 mod 3 = 2, 59 mod 3 = 2, > > 61 mod 3 = 1, 67 mod 3 = 1, 71 mod 3 = 2, 73 mod 3 = 1, 79 mod 3 = 1, > > 83 mod 3 = 2, 89 mod 3 = 2, 97 mod 3 = 1 > > I get the same. > > > There are some mathematical details which have to be handled though > > before you rush to higher primes, as the maximum gap between primes is > > roughly p+1, where p^2 is the smallest integer. So to look mod 101, > > for instance, you'd need to start at 101^2, before you use primes, so > > you'd take the residue modulo primes greater than p^2. > > > So I need to clip the first two and start at 11 mod 3. > > > So the sequence is > > > 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1 > > I get this too. > > > and by the prime residue axiom, it is random. > > It is completely deterministic. > > Do you really mean something like "without structure" or "with > distribution function p(i)"? > > > Primes could be used to label random sequences. As imagine the > > sequence above were to be labeled, then it could be, residues mod 3, > > from 11 through 23. For different random sequences, you could just > > look for them in prime residues, and use the primes themselves to > > label in the same way. > > You are talking about pseudorandom sequences. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_sequence > > M > -- James went through this " p mod 3 is random" stuff a year or so ago. It's not even a good pseudo-random sequence, there being a greater preference for 1 to follow 2 (and vice versa) than 1 to follow 1 or 2 to follow 2.
From: John Blackpool on 8 Feb 2010 04:46 On 8 Feb, 04:34, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 10:23 am, Frederick Williams <frederick.willia...(a)tesco.net> > wrote: > > > JSH wrote: > > > So I presented a rather simple mathematical axiom: > > > > Prime residue axiom: Given differing primes p_1 and p_2, there is no > > > preference for any particular residue of p_2 for p_1 mod p_2 over any > > > other. (And I'll note that I don't consider 0 to be a residue. ) > > > What is meant by "preference" in this context? > > A prime p has p-1 residues. The axiom tells you that it does not > prefer any residue over another when taken modulo another prime. > > For instance 3 has only 1 and 2 as residues. 11 mod 3 = 2, while 13 > mod 3 = 1. > > The axiom says that 3 does not care. > > > > The axiom indicates then that by residue, there *should* be random > > > behavior. Here is an example mod 3. > > > What is "random behavior" in this context? > > No other reason exists for the pattern. > > If you could look over the series over infinity you would find every > possible patter of 1's and 2's within it. > > Another way to consider it is, can you generate a formula to predict > what the residue mod 3 is of the 1000000000000000th prime? > > None exists because it's random. > > You cannot figure out what that residue is by any other means than > actually getting that prime and checking. > > No matter how far out you go, someone else can go further, so knowing > what the residues are for smaller numbers does not mean the series is > not random. > > If you doubt me, give the newsgroups the residue mod 3 of the 10^100 > th prime. The googol number. > > What is its residue mod 3? > > James Harris Let's play a game: Give me the residue mod 3 for any prime and I'll predict the residue mod 3 for the next one, betting you $1 each time that I'm right. I guarantee I'll win over time. Now how is that possible? If a roulette wheel was more likely to give 'black' on the spin immediately following one where it had just given 'red', then casinos would go broke. Would you still argue that the roulette wheel was random? My guess is that you'd say yes, because you don't know for *certain* which color is next (although as posters rightly point out, in your example it is in fact deterministic). Let's ignore that for now...the problem remains that 'not knowing for certain' is not the same as a precise definition of random, at least not the definition used by others. You're free to define your own version of 'random' to be whatever you like in 'mymath', but you're not then free to use it as if it also has the properties of other people's definitions in 'realmath'.
From: Frederick Williams on 8 Feb 2010 06:29 JSH wrote: > > On Feb 7, 10:23 am, Frederick Williams <frederick.willia...(a)tesco.net> > wrote: > > JSH wrote: > > > So I presented a rather simple mathematical axiom: > > > > > Prime residue axiom: Given differing primes p_1 and p_2, there is no > > > preference for any particular residue of p_2 for p_1 mod p_2 over any > > > other. (And I'll note that I don't consider 0 to be a residue. ) > > > > What is meant by "preference" in this context? > > A prime p has p-1 residues. The axiom tells you that it does not > prefer any residue over another when taken modulo another prime. Yes, but what does "prefer" mean in this context? The idea of mathematical entities preferring something seems bizarre to me. > For instance 3 has only 1 and 2 as residues. 11 mod 3 = 2, while 13 > mod 3 = 1. > > The axiom says that 3 does not care. > > > > The axiom indicates then that by residue, there *should* be random > > > behavior. Here is an example mod 3. > > > > What is "random behavior" in this context? > > No other reason exists for the pattern. > > If you could look over the series over infinity you would find every > possible patter of 1's and 2's within it. That is something that one might hope to prove or disprove. If you can prove it without appealing to your axiom then your axiom is redundant. If you can disprove it then your axiom is inconsistent with number theory. -- Mathematics is a part of physics. Physics is an experimental science, a part of natural science. Mathematics is the part of physics where experiments are cheap. (V.I. Arnold)
From: JSH on 8 Feb 2010 20:10 On Feb 8, 1:36 am, John Blackpool <jblackpoo...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > On 7 Feb, 18:26, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 07/02/2010 18:06, JSH wrote: > > > > Here is what you get with the first 23 primes greater than 3: > > > > 5 mod 3 = 2, 7 mod 3 = 1, 11 mod 3 = 2, 13 mod 3 = 1, 17 mod 3 = 2, > > > 19 mod 3 = 1, 23 mod 3 = 2, 29 mod 3 = 2, 31 mod 3 = 1, 37 mod 3 = 1, > > > 41 mod 3 = 2, 43 mod 3 = 1, 47 mod 3 = 2, 53 mod 3 = 2, 59 mod 3 = 2, > > > 61 mod 3 = 1, 67 mod 3 = 1, 71 mod 3 = 2, 73 mod 3 = 1, 79 mod 3 = 1, > > > 83 mod 3 = 2, 89 mod 3 = 2, 97 mod 3 = 1 > > > I get the same. > > > > There are some mathematical details which have to be handled though > > > before you rush to higher primes, as the maximum gap between primes is > > > roughly p+1, where p^2 is the smallest integer. So to look mod 101, > > > for instance, you'd need to start at 101^2, before you use primes, so > > > you'd take the residue modulo primes greater than p^2. > > > > So I need to clip the first two and start at 11 mod 3. > > > > So the sequence is > > > > 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1 > > > I get this too. > > > > and by the prime residue axiom, it is random. > > > It is completely deterministic. > > > Do you really mean something like "without structure" or "with > > distribution function p(i)"? > > > > Primes could be used to label random sequences. As imagine the > > > sequence above were to be labeled, then it could be, residues mod 3, > > > from 11 through 23. For different random sequences, you could just > > > look for them in prime residues, and use the primes themselves to > > > label in the same way. > > > You are talking about pseudorandom sequences. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_sequence > > > M > > -- > > James went through this " p mod 3 is random" stuff a year or so ago. > > It's not even a good pseudo-random sequence, there being a greater > preference for 1 to follow 2 (and vice versa) than 1 to follow 1 or 2 > to follow 2. It was a couple of years ago. Various posters made that argument. My point is that mathematicians can't be trusted on this subject because twin primes are a cash cow. But statistical debates can be endless with people finding "patterns" all over the place, like your assertion. So the twin primes probability result is more potent because there are large tables of twin prime calculations already and the probability works VERY well, with an over count of about 12% according to various posters, which is, as physicists like to say, within an order of magnitude. So to physics people what math people already admit is enough to indicate random behavior. Which means I don't have to get in a stupid debate about how random the mod 3 results are, and run down that rabbit hole of idiot stat arguments from people in denial. So don't even think that dumb argument is about to get started now. Focus is on twin primes. And Usenet isn't really the picture here. I don't know why Usenet posters keep believing it only matters what's stated on newsgroups. The real action is elsewhere. James Harris
From: BURT on 8 Feb 2010 22:31
On Feb 7, 10:06 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > It's important to highlight the debate about randomness and prime > numbers as for years now the side which claims that random cannot be > found with primes has been winning, when all the evidence actually > says that they can. > > And it's not a minor issue. If primes can give random distributions > then random may possibly defined through prime numbers. Random in our > reality may BE about prime numbers. > > It's an opportunity to answer one of the biggest questions in our > reality: what exactly is random? > > So I presented a rather simple mathematical axiom: > > Prime residue axiom: Given differing primes p_1 and p_2, there is no > preference for any particular residue of p_2 for p_1 mod p_2 over any > other. (And I'll note that I don't consider 0 to be a residue. ) > > The axiom indicates then that by residue, there *should* be random > behavior. Here is an example mod 3. > > Here is what you get with the first 23 primes greater than 3: > > 5 mod 3 = 2, 7 mod 3 = 1, 11 mod 3 = 2, 13 mod 3 = 1, 17 mod 3 = 2, > 19 mod 3 = 1, 23 mod 3 = 2, 29 mod 3 = 2, 31 mod 3 = 1, 37 mod 3 = 1, > 41 mod 3 = 2, 43 mod 3 = 1, 47 mod 3 = 2, 53 mod 3 = 2, 59 mod 3 = 2, > 61 mod 3 = 1, 67 mod 3 = 1, 71 mod 3 = 2, 73 mod 3 = 1, 79 mod 3 = 1, > 83 mod 3 = 2, 89 mod 3 = 2, 97 mod 3 = 1 > > There are some mathematical details which have to be handled though > before you rush to higher primes, as the maximum gap between primes is > roughly p+1, where p^2 is the smallest integer. So to look mod 101, > for instance, you'd need to start at 101^2, before you use primes, so > you'd take the residue modulo primes greater than p^2. > > So I need to clip the first two and start at 11 mod 3. > > So the sequence is > > 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1 > > and by the prime residue axiom, it is random. > > Primes could be used to label random sequences. As imagine the > sequence above were to be labeled, then it could be, residues mod 3, > from 11 through 23. For different random sequences, you could just > look for them in prime residues, and use the primes themselves to > label in the same way. > > The max gap isn't a complicated thing to handle. So if you wish to > test this idea out, you can program it easily enough, and just look at > the distribution with the standard methods to determine randomness. > > But notice, if you did not know about the max gap issue, and did so, > you could convince yourself that the sequence is not random as you'd > have a tendency towards smaller residues until you broke through the > barrier. > > For those still skeptical consider now twin primes. The prime residue > axiom would indicate that for twin primes--two primes in a row > separated only by 2, for instance 11, 13, or 17, 19--the probability > calculation for their occurrence is actually very easy. > > For example, between 5^2 and 7^2, there are 6 primes. The probability > then is given by: > > prob = ((5-2)/(5-1))*((3-2)/(3-1) = (3/4)*(1/2) = 0.375 > > (That calculation is fairly straightforward probability.) > > And 6*0.375 = 2.25 so you expect 2 twin primes in that interval. > > The primes are 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47 and you'll notice, two twin > primes as predicted: 29,31 and 41, 43. > > However, there is an issue which shifts the probability slightly. > > If you go into the actual residues it jumps out at you: > > 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47 > > mod 3: 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2 > mod 5: 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 2 > > Here all the residues for 5 were in evidence so the count came out > right, but for random it should have been possible for ALL the > residues mod 5 to be 4, but it's not because with 6 primes there isn't > enough space in the interval--4*5 = 20, but 49-25=24, where only 12 > are odd and only 6 are primes. So the probability is actually off! A > scenario where all residues are 4 is precluded by the size of the > interval for the larger prime. > > Which is an issue like the max gap problem. > > That will tend to over-count because the higher residues are less > likely to occur because they cannot fit. Easy explanation that jumps > out at you with even a small example. Easy. > > For the smaller primes it's not an issue as if the prime is greater > than interval/(prime count in interval) then that prime isn't affected > and its residues can have purely random behavior. For instance, for 3 > between 25 and 49, you have 24/(6) = 4, and as that is greater than 3, > there is no clipping for 3. > > And that's it. > > You have all the information needed to see randomness with prime > numbers. > > For the residue of one prime relative to another, you have to go > beyond the max gap. I've hypothesized that's just a matter of going > to primes greater than p^2, to get a random sequence of numbers using > that prime's residues. For instance, again for p = 101, you'd use > primes greater than 101^2. > > I've also shown how you can see the count of twin primes following the > predictions from random, with a slight over in the expectation value > given by difficulty in fitting in higher residues of the larger > primes. > > Physicists who are curious who are good with their probability and > statistics can test out distributions to see if they now look random, > and should consider why they believed before that primes did not give > us random. > > Primes may have been the key all along. The answer to random. By > using them fully we may be able to greatly enhance our understanding > of random in our own world. > > Who knows? Random in our everyday lives may just be about prime > behavior. > > James Harris Primes should be called roots. Mitch Raemsch |