Digits of the square root of primes
$begingroup$
Here is something interesting I discovered recently.
Let $S_n$ be the sum from the first decimal of $sqrt2+sqrt{p_n}$ to the $p_n$th decimal, where $p_n$ is the $n$th prime number. Then I conjecture that $S_{n+1}>S_n$ for all $n>1$.
Although I have no way of proving this and no feasible way to disprove this, I have a few comments that may be useful.
The first few values of $S_n$ for $n=2,3,4,5,6$ are $10,21,41,48,64$. Clearly these are increasing.
If we pick $p_{n+1}$ such that it is greater than a square number by a small amount, then it will have more zeroes, especially when $n$ is large. Therefore using this method there could be a higher chance that $S_{n+1}le S_n$ and thus disproving the conjecture. I have done so for $p_6=13$ and $p_7=17$, and for $p_{12}=37$ and $p_{11}=31$, but to no avail since $85=S_7>S_6=64$ and $149=S_{12}>S_{11}=123$.
I have a strong feeling that the conjecture is true, since every time we are adding more digits, and the chance of zeroes occurring that overcome the increasing sum is subjectively low.
Any advances on this are welcome!
If you do happen to find a value of $n$ that disprove the conjecture, please give a few more so that a pattern can hopefully be observed, if any.
prime-numbers recreational-mathematics radicals
asked Dec 30 '18 at 17:40
TheSimpliFireTheSimpliFire
12.6k62360
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is something interesting I discovered recently.
Let $S_n$ be the sum from the first decimal of $sqrt2+sqrt{p_n}$ to the $p_n$th decimal, where $p_n$ is the $n$th prime number. Then I conjecture that $S_{n+1}>S_n$ for all $n>1$.
Although I have no way of proving this and no feasible way to disprove this, I have a few comments that may be useful.
The first few values of $S_n$ for $n=2,3,4,5,6$ are $10,21,41,48,64$. Clearly these are increasing.
If we pick $p_{n+1}$ such that it is greater than a square number by a small amount, then it will have more zeroes, especially when $n$ is large. Therefore using this method there could be a higher chance that $S_{n+1}le S_n$ and thus disproving the conjecture. I have done so for $p_6=13$ and $p_7=17$, and for $p_{12}=37$ and $p_{11}=31$, but to no avail since $85=S_7>S_6=64$ and $149=S_{12}>S_{11}=123$.
I have a strong feeling that the conjecture is true, since every time we are adding more digits, and the chance of zeroes occurring that overcome the increasing sum is subjectively low.
Any advances on this are welcome!
If you do happen to find a value of $n$ that disprove the conjecture, please give a few more so that a pattern can hopefully be observed, if any.
prime-numbers recreational-mathematics radicals
asked Dec 30 '18 at 17:40
TheSimpliFireTheSimpliFire
12.6k62360
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Your thought to have $p_{n+1}$ just greater than a square is a good one. It would also be good to have $p_n=p_{n+1}-2$, which means the square is a multiple of $36$ so you don't get so many digits added. This requires that the square be a multiple of $900$ because otherwise the square ends in $4$ or $6$ and one of the neighboring numbers is a multiple of $5$. I am sure there are people with code sitting around that can try millions or billions of cases easily.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
Dec 30 '18 at 18:16
2
$begingroup$
@RossMillikan counterexample found
$endgroup$
– Quintec
Dec 30 '18 at 18:25
2
$begingroup$
@Quintec: you should write it up as an answer. You just need to copy in the decimals and sums.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
Dec 30 '18 at 18:36
$begingroup$
@RossMillikan Done.
$endgroup$
– Quintec
Dec 30 '18 at 18:55
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is something interesting I discovered recently.
Let $S_n$ be the sum from the first decimal of $sqrt2+sqrt{p_n}$ to the $p_n$th decimal, where $p_n$ is the $n$th prime number. Then I conjecture that $S_{n+1}>S_n$ for all $n>1$.
Although I have no way of proving this and no feasible way to disprove this, I have a few comments that may be useful.
The first few values of $S_n$ for $n=2,3,4,5,6$ are $10,21,41,48,64$. Clearly these are increasing.
If we pick $p_{n+1}$ such that it is greater than a square number by a small amount, then it will have more zeroes, especially when $n$ is large. Therefore using this method there could be a higher chance that $S_{n+1}le S_n$ and thus disproving the conjecture. I have done so for $p_6=13$ and $p_7=17$, and for $p_{12}=37$ and $p_{11}=31$, but to no avail since $85=S_7>S_6=64$ and $149=S_{12}>S_{11}=123$.
I have a strong feeling that the conjecture is true, since every time we are adding more digits, and the chance of zeroes occurring that overcome the increasing sum is subjectively low.
Any advances on this are welcome!
If you do happen to find a value of $n$ that disprove the conjecture, please give a few more so that a pattern can hopefully be observed, if any.
prime-numbers recreational-mathematics radicals
asked Dec 30 '18 at 17:40
TheSimpliFireTheSimpliFire
12.6k62360
$endgroup$
Here is something interesting I discovered recently.
Let $S_n$ be the sum from the first decimal of $sqrt2+sqrt{p_n}$ to the $p_n$th decimal, where $p_n$ is the $n$th prime number. Then I conjecture that $S_{n+1}>S_n$ for all $n>1$.
Although I have no way of proving this and no feasible way to disprove this, I have a few comments that may be useful.
The first few values of $S_n$ for $n=2,3,4,5,6$ are $10,21,41,48,64$. Clearly these are increasing.
If we pick $p_{n+1}$ such that it is greater than a square number by a small amount, then it will have more zeroes, especially when $n$ is large. Therefore using this method there could be a higher chance that $S_{n+1}le S_n$ and thus disproving the conjecture. I have done so for $p_6=13$ and $p_7=17$, and for $p_{12}=37$ and $p_{11}=31$, but to no avail since $85=S_7>S_6=64$ and $149=S_{12}>S_{11}=123$.
I have a strong feeling that the conjecture is true, since every time we are adding more digits, and the chance of zeroes occurring that overcome the increasing sum is subjectively low.
Any advances on this are welcome!
If you do happen to find a value of $n$ that disprove the conjecture, please give a few more so that a pattern can hopefully be observed, if any.
prime-numbers recreational-mathematics radicals
prime-numbers recreational-mathematics radicals
asked Dec 30 '18 at 17:40
TheSimpliFireTheSimpliFire
12.6k62360
asked Dec 30 '18 at 17:40
TheSimpliFireTheSimpliFire
12.6k62360
asked Dec 30 '18 at 17:40
TheSimpliFireTheSimpliFire
12.6k62360
asked Dec 30 '18 at 17:40
TheSimpliFireTheSimpliFire
12.6k62360
asked Dec 30 '18 at 17:40
TheSimpliFireTheSimpliFire
12.6k62360
12.6k62360
$begingroup$
Your thought to have $p_{n+1}$ just greater than a square is a good one. It would also be good to have $p_n=p_{n+1}-2$, which means the square is a multiple of $36$ so you don't get so many digits added. This requires that the square be a multiple of $900$ because otherwise the square ends in $4$ or $6$ and one of the neighboring numbers is a multiple of $5$. I am sure there are people with code sitting around that can try millions or billions of cases easily.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
Dec 30 '18 at 18:16
2
$begingroup$
@RossMillikan counterexample found
$endgroup$
– Quintec
Dec 30 '18 at 18:25
2
$begingroup$
@Quintec: you should write it up as an answer. You just need to copy in the decimals and sums.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
Dec 30 '18 at 18:36
$begingroup$
@RossMillikan Done.
$endgroup$
– Quintec
Dec 30 '18 at 18:55
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your thought to have $p_{n+1}$ just greater than a square is a good one. It would also be good to have $p_n=p_{n+1}-2$, which means the square is a multiple of $36$ so you don't get so many digits added. This requires that the square be a multiple of $900$ because otherwise the square ends in $4$ or $6$ and one of the neighboring numbers is a multiple of $5$. I am sure there are people with code sitting around that can try millions or billions of cases easily.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
Dec 30 '18 at 18:16
2
$begingroup$
@RossMillikan counterexample found
$endgroup$
– Quintec
Dec 30 '18 at 18:25
2
$begingroup$
@Quintec: you should write it up as an answer. You just need to copy in the decimals and sums.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
Dec 30 '18 at 18:36
$begingroup$
@RossMillikan Done.
$endgroup$
– Quintec
Dec 30 '18 at 18:55
$begingroup$
Your thought to have $p_{n+1}$ just greater than a square is a good one. It would also be good to have $p_n=p_{n+1}-2$, which means the square is a multiple of $36$ so you don't get so many digits added. This requires that the square be a multiple of $900$ because otherwise the square ends in $4$ or $6$ and one of the neighboring numbers is a multiple of $5$. I am sure there are people with code sitting around that can try millions or billions of cases easily.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
Dec 30 '18 at 18:16
$begingroup$
Your thought to have $p_{n+1}$ just greater than a square is a good one. It would also be good to have $p_n=p_{n+1}-2$, which means the square is a multiple of $36$ so you don't get so many digits added. This requires that the square be a multiple of $900$ because otherwise the square ends in $4$ or $6$ and one of the neighboring numbers is a multiple of $5$. I am sure there are people with code sitting around that can try millions or billions of cases easily.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
Dec 30 '18 at 18:16
2
2
$begingroup$
@RossMillikan counterexample found
$endgroup$
– Quintec
Dec 30 '18 at 18:25
$begingroup$
@RossMillikan counterexample found
$endgroup$
– Quintec
Dec 30 '18 at 18:25
2
2
$begingroup$
@Quintec: you should write it up as an answer. You just need to copy in the decimals and sums.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
Dec 30 '18 at 18:36
$begingroup$
@Quintec: you should write it up as an answer. You just need to copy in the decimals and sums.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
Dec 30 '18 at 18:36
$begingroup$
@RossMillikan Done.
$endgroup$
– Quintec
Dec 30 '18 at 18:55
$begingroup$
@RossMillikan Done.
$endgroup$
– Quintec
Dec 30 '18 at 18:55
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Checking all primes in Python, a counterexample is found at 19. Here are the first few sums:
$$
begin{array}{r|r}
p_n & S_n \
hline
2 & 10\
3 & 11 \
5 & 21 \
7 & 41 \
11 & 48 \
13 & 63 \
17 & 93 \
textbf{19} & textbf{72} \
end{array}
$$
As you can see, $72 notgt 93$.
Here is the source code with output up to the counterexample, and here is some more data that goes up to $p_n < 100$. The data includes $p_n$, $sqrt2+sqrt{p_n}$, and $S_n$. It also notes when another counterexample is found - as you can see, there are many.
answered Dec 30 '18 at 18:52
QuintecQuintec
22625
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3057048%2fdigits-of-the-square-root-of-primes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Checking all primes in Python, a counterexample is found at 19. Here are the first few sums:
$$
begin{array}{r|r}
p_n & S_n \
hline
2 & 10\
3 & 11 \
5 & 21 \
7 & 41 \
11 & 48 \
13 & 63 \
17 & 93 \
textbf{19} & textbf{72} \
end{array}
$$
As you can see, $72 notgt 93$.
Here is the source code with output up to the counterexample, and here is some more data that goes up to $p_n < 100$. The data includes $p_n$, $sqrt2+sqrt{p_n}$, and $S_n$. It also notes when another counterexample is found - as you can see, there are many.
answered Dec 30 '18 at 18:52
QuintecQuintec
22625
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Checking all primes in Python, a counterexample is found at 19. Here are the first few sums:
$$
begin{array}{r|r}
p_n & S_n \
hline
2 & 10\
3 & 11 \
5 & 21 \
7 & 41 \
11 & 48 \
13 & 63 \
17 & 93 \
textbf{19} & textbf{72} \
end{array}
$$
As you can see, $72 notgt 93$.
Here is the source code with output up to the counterexample, and here is some more data that goes up to $p_n < 100$. The data includes $p_n$, $sqrt2+sqrt{p_n}$, and $S_n$. It also notes when another counterexample is found - as you can see, there are many.
answered Dec 30 '18 at 18:52
QuintecQuintec
22625
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Checking all primes in Python, a counterexample is found at 19. Here are the first few sums:
$$
begin{array}{r|r}
p_n & S_n \
hline
2 & 10\
3 & 11 \
5 & 21 \
7 & 41 \
11 & 48 \
13 & 63 \
17 & 93 \
textbf{19} & textbf{72} \
end{array}
$$
As you can see, $72 notgt 93$.
Here is the source code with output up to the counterexample, and here is some more data that goes up to $p_n < 100$. The data includes $p_n$, $sqrt2+sqrt{p_n}$, and $S_n$. It also notes when another counterexample is found - as you can see, there are many.
answered Dec 30 '18 at 18:52
QuintecQuintec
22625
$endgroup$
Checking all primes in Python, a counterexample is found at 19. Here are the first few sums:
$$
begin{array}{r|r}
p_n & S_n \
hline
2 & 10\
3 & 11 \
5 & 21 \
7 & 41 \
11 & 48 \
13 & 63 \
17 & 93 \
textbf{19} & textbf{72} \
end{array}
$$
As you can see, $72 notgt 93$.
Here is the source code with output up to the counterexample, and here is some more data that goes up to $p_n < 100$. The data includes $p_n$, $sqrt2+sqrt{p_n}$, and $S_n$. It also notes when another counterexample is found - as you can see, there are many.
answered Dec 30 '18 at 18:52
QuintecQuintec
22625
answered Dec 30 '18 at 18:52
QuintecQuintec
22625
answered Dec 30 '18 at 18:52
QuintecQuintec
22625
answered Dec 30 '18 at 18:52
QuintecQuintec
22625
22625
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3057048%2fdigits-of-the-square-root-of-primes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Your thought to have $p_{n+1}$ just greater than a square is a good one. It would also be good to have $p_n=p_{n+1}-2$, which means the square is a multiple of $36$ so you don't get so many digits added. This requires that the square be a multiple of $900$ because otherwise the square ends in $4$ or $6$ and one of the neighboring numbers is a multiple of $5$. I am sure there are people with code sitting around that can try millions or billions of cases easily.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
Dec 30 '18 at 18:16
2
$begingroup$
@RossMillikan counterexample found
$endgroup$
– Quintec
Dec 30 '18 at 18:25
2
$begingroup$
@Quintec: you should write it up as an answer. You just need to copy in the decimals and sums.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
Dec 30 '18 at 18:36
$begingroup$
@RossMillikan Done.
$endgroup$
– Quintec
Dec 30 '18 at 18:55