/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #14280220

7KiB, 625x272, ture.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Fri 04 Mar 21:20:42 2022 No.14280220 View Reply Original Report

This statement has already been proven as factual, but my stupid schizo brain isn't capable of understand why it's irrefutable, can somebody explain the proof behind this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Mar 2022 21:26:44 No.14280234 Report

>>14280220
>This statement has already been proven as factual
It hasn't. The statement isn't true. 3 is neither a factor of 6 nor 6k+-1

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Mar 2022 21:28:50 No.14280237 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280234
2*3=6.
factor of n: definition (math) A number that can be multiplied by another number to equal n.
In fact it's already been proven many times that there are no possible exceptions to the rule all the way to infinity but I just don't understand the proof, thus this thread.
Lol.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO l.png, 11KiB, 743x206

Anonymous Fri 04 Mar 2022 21:29:52 No.14280241 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280234

Google.
Lol.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Mar 2022 21:32:18 No.14280248 Report

Quoted By: >>14280251 >>14280902 >>14280913 >>14282640 >>14284221 >>14284556 >>14287870

Quite easy:
2 and 3 are prime

For any k:
6k is not prime
6k+1 can be prime
6k+ 2 and 6k+4 are even
6k+ 3 is divisible by 3
6k+5 is 6(k+1)-1 and can be prime

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Mar 2022 21:34:19 No.14280250 Report

Quoted By: >>14280252 >>14280260

>>14280220
Interesting. What does '6k' mean in this context?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Mar 2022 21:34:23 No.14280251 Report

Quoted By: >>14280724

>>14280248
Ahhh, for some reason that makes more sense to me than the other explanations I saw.
Thanks, lol.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Mar 2022 21:34:38 No.14280252 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280250
6 times an integer (k)

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Mar 2022 21:36:22 No.14280260 Report

Quoted By: >>14281520

>>14280250
Six times an integer.
6*1+1=7.
6*1-1=5.
6*2+1=13.
6*2-1=11.
All prime numbers after 3 can be translated into 6k+-1.

And also all prime numbers after 3 hold true for this as well:

prime-squared-1 is a multiple of 24.

So 5*5=25-1=24.
7*7=49-1=48 (24*2).
All primes follow this rule too. But not all numbers that follow these rules are prime.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Mar 2022 22:21:08 No.14280341 Report

Quoted By: >>14280362

1 and 6 are also factors of 6 so the first statement is false without further caveats

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Mar 2022 22:25:52 No.14280349 Report

Quoted By: >>14280362

prime numbers are not real. All numbers can be reduced to lesser factors. Whole numbers are are also not real.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Mar 2022 22:35:32 No.14280361 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280220
I was getting worried
Had to check up to the 6x20 to verify that this algorithm doesn't necessarily generate primes

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Mar 2022 22:35:44 No.14280362 Report

Quoted By: >>14280366

>>14280341
>>14280349
>>14280234
I can't believe the "science" board is this genuinely stupid.

All PRIMES are either a factor of 6 or 6k+-1.

>>14280234
>3 is not a factor of 6.
Wrong. Use Google, search "factors of 6."

>>14280341
>1 and 6 are also factors of 6 so the first statement is false
Wrong. The first statement does not say that all factors of 6 are prime, it says that all primes are factors of 6 or 6k+-1, how do you not understand the most basic sentence structure?

>>14280349
>Prime numbers are not real
What the fuck are you talking about?
>All numbers can be reduced to lesser factors
No they can't. Decimals don't count because they are literally just representations of the whole numbers. .1 = 1/10. Idiots.

This can't be for real, it's like some of you guys never graduated elementary school.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Mar 2022 22:36:54 No.14280366 Report

Quoted By: >>14280373 >>14280374 >>14280375 >>14284170

>>14280362
>All PRIMES are either a factor of 6 or 6k+-1
1 and 6 are both factors of 6 and neither one of them are prime

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Mar 2022 22:38:44 No.14280373 Report

Quoted By: >>14280376 >>14280628

>>14280366
You are baiting or have the mind of a 13 year old.
The statement is that all primes less than 7 are factors of 6. NOT that all factors of 6 are prime.

2 and 3 are primes, and they ARE factors of 6. Did you read the statement correctly?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Mar 2022 22:40:38 No.14280374 Report

Quoted By: >>14280383

>>14280366
If a number is prime: It is a factor of 6, if it is prime and not a factor of 6, then it can be represented as 6k+-1.

If a number is a factor of 6, it is not necessarily prime. If a number can be represented as 6k+-1 it is not necessarily prime.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Mar 2022 22:42:09 No.14280375 Report

Quoted By: >>14280383

>>14280366
I didn't even come up with this statement it's already been proven by many other people. Proven meaning irrefutable.

You are not reading the sentence. You are not reading it right...

The sentence is that all primes follow the rule, NOT "all numbers that follow the rule are prime" if the number is already a known prime, THEN it follow the rule, not vice versa. Read the post again please.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Mar 2022 22:42:40 No.14280376 Report

Quoted By: >>14280381

>>14280373
Then rule applies to half the positive integer factors of six and it's all but useless. You might as well say all primes are 2 or 2n+1.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Mar 2022 22:43:26 No.14280381 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280376
Now you are correct.
And yes it is useless.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Mar 2022 22:44:40 No.14280383 Report

Quoted By: >>14280392

>>14280374
>>14280375
>All primes are whole numbers
Prove me wrong

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Mar 2022 22:52:00 No.14280392 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280383
I mean, you could look at primes in some other PID if you wanted.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 01:11:01 No.14280628 Report

Quoted By: >>14280646 >>14281526

>>14280373
>The statement is that all primes less than 7 are factors of 6.
What about 5?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 01:18:42 No.14280646 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280628
You must be a newbie.
Here on /sci/ we have the convention that 5 is a factor of 6, since 6/5 = 1.2 and this is acceptable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 01:22:01 No.14280653 Report

Quoted By: >>14280659 >>14280660 >>14280662 >>14280692

>>14280220
6*4+1 isn't prime though

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 01:24:38 No.14280659 Report

Quoted By: >>14283701

>>14280653
"All men are humans".

"There are some humans that are not men, though !!"

So ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 01:25:32 No.14280660 Report

Quoted By: >>14280672

>>14280653
All a are b != all b are a

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 01:25:40 No.14280662 Report

Quoted By: >>14280670

>>14280653
It is a singular exception.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 01:28:00 No.14280670 Report

Quoted By: >>14280747

>>14280662
6*5 + 1 isn't prime either

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 01:29:01 No.14280672 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280660
That depends on the values of a and b

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 01:34:25 No.14280692 Report

Quoted By: >>14280719

>>14280653
If only that had any relevance to the original statement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 01:43:24 No.14280719 Report

Quoted By: >>14281006

>>14280692
It has relevance, because 6x4+1 obviously isn't a factor of 6.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 01:44:26 No.14280724 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280251
What other explanations did you see?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 01:54:07 No.14280747 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280670
See, this is where we might begin to differ.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 01:57:47 No.14280757 Report

Quoted By: >>14280808

>>14280220
unrelated question, but is there any online graphing calculator tool where you could for example input line a as "2x" line b as "(1.5x+x)/z" and have it solve for z such that it's line is identical?

cause i used to have that tool bookmarked years ago on an old laptop and now i can't find the site anymore and was wondering if it still existed.
in addition to solving for z(or whatever value) it also had a slider that let you change variables and see what the line did.

the closest i've found just now looking is https://www.desmos.com/calculator , which only has half of that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 02:23:57 No.14280808 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280757
i mean i know that's just a basic algebra solve for variable thing, just put both graphs on opposite ends of the equal sign, its just i liked the visual bit

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 02:32:26 No.14280827 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280220
to clarify 6k+/-1 isn't a formula for finding/generating prime numbers, it's just a squares/rectangles thing to easily eliminate nonprimes from a list(it doesn't filter them all out tho, its just step 1)

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1472131240943.jpg, 35KiB, 385x375

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 02:54:53 No.14280870 Report

Quoted By: >>14280883

What a fucking disaster of a thread. How are people getting filtered by middle school math?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 03:00:13 No.14280883 Report

Quoted By: >>14284178

>>14280870
How about you learn what prime numbers are before acting all smug
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 03:04:45 No.14280902 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280248
/thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 03:09:14 No.14280913 Report

Quoted By: >>14280914 >>14280972 >>14280981 >>14282069 >>14284293

>>14280248
>6k+ 3 is divisible by 3
why?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 03:12:09 No.14280914 Report

Quoted By: >>14280948

>>14280913
(6k+3)/3 = 2k+1

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 03:25:19 No.14280930 Report

Quoted By: >>14281995

Okay let's see
2 is factor of 6
3 is factor of 6
5 is 6-1
7 is 6+1
11 is 12-1
13 is 12+1
17 is 18-1
19 is 18+1

hmm. seems to be true

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 03:29:49 No.14280937 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280220
6k factor
6k±2 factor
6k±3 factor
6k±1 everything else

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 03:34:02 No.14280948 Report

Quoted By: >>14280964 >>14280972

>>14280914
???

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 03:39:59 No.14280964 Report

Quoted By: >>14281246 >>14284180

>>14280948
What are you not understanding? The number 6k+3 when divided by 3 gives 2k+1, hence it is divisible by 3, and therefore not prime.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 03:43:35 No.14280972 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280913
>>14280948
Based retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 03:49:13 No.14280981 Report

Quoted By: >>14281266

>>14280913
6k+3=
3(2k)+3=
3x+3=
3(x+1)=
3y

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 04:05:33 No.14281006 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280719
6*4-1 is

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 06:46:31 No.14281246 Report

Quoted By: >>14281264 >>14281266 >>14283401

>>14280964
Don't you need to divide k by 3 as well?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO download.png, 15KiB, 223x226

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 06:58:21 No.14281259 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280220
Oh yeah such rocket science. Just the sieve of Eratosthenes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 07:03:29 No.14281264 Report

Quoted By:

>>14281246
Test it with numbers yourself to find out, if you want to.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 07:05:04 No.14281266 Report

Quoted By: >>14281277 >>14282652

>>14281246
No. Only each term in the sum needs to be divided by 3, not each multiplicand in the term.
See here:
>>14280981
The 3 in the 6, and the 3 on the end can get pulled out to make 3(2k+1), which shows the whole thing is divisible by 3.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 07:09:36 No.14281277 Report

Quoted By:

>>14281266
>multiplicand
Sorry, just saw I should have said factor to be more correct.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 10:14:01 No.14281520 Report

Quoted By: >>14282518

>>14280260
3 isn't a prime number. It can be factored as sqrt(3)*sqrt(3)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 10:19:32 No.14281526 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280628
5 is 1*6-1, it falls under rule b.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 12:29:45 No.14281696 Report

Quoted By: >>14281801

>>14280220
Why do they use k instead of x
I read it as 6000 at first

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 14:03:51 No.14281801 Report

Quoted By:

>>14281696
its convention to use k for integer only variables

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 14:21:23 No.14281823 Report

Quoted By: >>14281825 >>14281905 >>14282827

>>14280220
All primes are either:
a. A factor of 2.
b. 2k-1

Just as true, just as utterly useless.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 14:26:37 No.14281825 Report

Quoted By:

>>14281823
/thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 15:16:04 No.14281878 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280220
It covers all the odd numbers that aren't 6k+3, and since 3 is a factor of 6, those are also not primes.

bruce3434

bruce3434 Sat 05 Mar 2022 15:33:42 No.14281896 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280220
let p > 6 be a prime number
if you divide it by 6 it can have the following rest (0,1,2,3,4,5)
- 0. this cant be because then it wouldnt be prime
- 2. p = 6k+2 = 2(3k+1) , this means 2 | p which is contradiction
- 3. p = 6k+3 = 3(2k+1), this means 3 | p, contradiction
- 4. p = 6k+4 = 2(3k+2), 2 | p, contradiction
- 5. p = 6k+5 = 6(k+1) - 1, OK
- 1. p = 6k+1 OK

so p = 6k +-1

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 15:40:18 No.14281905 Report

Quoted By: >>14281918

>>14281823

2(5) -1 = 9

new to /sci/ so i'm not sure if this is bait or not

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 15:48:26 No.14281918 Report

Quoted By: >>14281950

>>14281905
All x are y does not imply all y are x. To disprove his statement you would need to find a prime that cannot be represented as a factor of 2, or as 2k-1. What you did was find a nonprime that can be represented as 2k-1, but this has nothing to do with the original assertion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 16:16:17 No.14281950 Report

Quoted By: >>14281999 >>14282004 >>14282058 >>14282065 >>14282275 >>14282497

>>14281918
>All x are y does not imply all y are x.
Yes it does, implication is transitive

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 16:47:43 No.14281995 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280930
It doesn't just seem to be true.
It's been proven to be true beyond all doubts. for all prime numbers all the way to infinity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 16:49:29 No.14281999 Report

Quoted By: >>14282004 >>14282068

>>14281950
No, he's right.
You can't find ANY prime that cannot be written as 6k+-1. But you CAN find numbers that are NOT prime that can be written as 6k+-1.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 16:50:31 No.14282004 Report

Quoted By:

>>14281950
>>14281999
And I mean besides 2 and 3. Don't even say it.
Lol.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 17:33:59 No.14282058 Report

Quoted By:

>>14281950
>Yes it does
No. It's literally a formal fallacy,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 17:41:27 No.14282065 Report

Quoted By: >>14287237

>>14281950
>implication is transitive
"No"

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 17:45:07 No.14282068 Report

Quoted By: >>14285620

>>14281999
7 is not 6k + -1

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 17:45:11 No.14282069 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280234
>>14280913
We share a mathematics board with these people

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 17:58:59 No.14282082 Report

Quoted By: >>14282089

>>14280220
a. The primes 2 and 3
b. All other primes can't have a remainder of 2,3, or 4 modulo 6 because then they would be divisible by 2 or 3. So they must be of the form 6k+1 or 6k-1

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 18:03:42 No.14282089 Report

Quoted By: >>14282201

>>14282082
What about a remainder of 0?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 19:09:44 No.14282183 Report

Quoted By: >>14282568

>>14280220
they're either 2 or 3 or
1 off of 6
but not 2 off of 6 as that would be 2 off of a multiple of 6 (which would be a multiple of 2)
but not 3 off of 6 as that would be 3 off of a multiple of 6, (which would be a multiple of 3)
but not 4 off of 6 as that would be 4 off of a multiple of 6, (and 2 off of a multiple of 6, which would be a multiple of 2)
but not 5 off of 6 (as that would just be one off of a multiple of 6 which is in the thing)

(a number off of 6 meaning 6, plus or minus that number)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 19:25:10 No.14282201 Report

Quoted By: >>14282203

>>14282089
It wouldn't be a prime if it had a remainder of 0

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 19:25:53 No.14282203 Report

Quoted By: >>14284908

>>14282201
Why

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 19:58:35 No.14282275 Report

Quoted By: >>14282542

>>14281950
>Yes it does, implication is transitive
All squares are rectangles does not imply all rectangles are squares you quadruplenigger.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 21:52:48 No.14282497 Report

Quoted By:

>>14281950
Yes, implication is transitive, but no, implication is not symmetric

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 22:10:07 No.14282518 Report

Quoted By:

>>14281520
By factorizable it is meant that it is a product of integers

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 22:11:28 No.14282519 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280234
based retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 22:16:00 No.14282524 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280220
a is unecessary

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 22:23:50 No.14282542 Report

Quoted By: >>14282664

>>14282275
Squares are rectangles though

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 22:46:49 No.14282568 Report

Quoted By: >>14282577

>>14282183
Yeah this guy said it

The first statement is completely arbitrary, it's like a completely pointless piece of trivia made up by a guy with a degree. Here's why it annoys me:
>factor of 6 is 1,2,3,6
>between every possible prime there will always be 2 numbers divisible by 6, because for every 6 numbers there will be at least one 6, and prime numbers aren't divisible by anything
>if a number is 1,2 or 3 above 6 60% of the total possible primes in existence are already covered (3 being counted only once because it covers both 3 addition and subtraction)
>if a number is 1 or 2 below 6 the other 40% is covered

I don't know about the second part because I just found out what factors are but the first line seems like something that doesn't need to be verified

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 22:52:49 No.14282577 Report

Quoted By:

>>14282568
Nvm I just realised that I'm an idiot sorry guys I just wanted to clarify that this is indeed interested and I was wrong

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 23:03:15 No.14282599 Report

Quoted By:

Now here's is a number theory exercise
What are all the natural numbers B for which the following statement is true
"all primes larger than B can be written as B.k +/- 1"

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 23:27:12 No.14282640 Report

Quoted By: >>14282645

>>14280248
Can anyone explain the last one to me
I see it makes sense but I don't see how 6k+5 = 6(k+1)-1.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 23:29:23 No.14282645 Report

Quoted By:

>>14282640
Oh wait
6k+5
6k+5 +1 -1
6k+6 -1
6(k+1)-1

Got it

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 23:32:52 No.14282652 Report

Quoted By:

>>14281266
I know I tried to make my explanation retard proof

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Mar 2022 23:41:19 No.14282664 Report

Quoted By: >>14282851

>>14282542
But rectangles aren't necessarily squares.

All prime numbers are numbers which satisfy 2k +/- 1
But not all numbers which satisfy 2k +/- 1 are prime

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 00:54:43 No.14282827 Report

Quoted By:

>>14281823
>Useless
It's a basic useful fact for speeding up prime search algorithms. The vast majority of the retard horde in college programmed a trial division algorithm checking EVERY SINGLE NUMBER, while midwits only checked odd numbers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 01:06:01 No.14282851 Report

Quoted By: >>14282879

>>14282664
squares ARE rectangles necessarily

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 01:18:59 No.14282879 Report

Quoted By: >>14286967

>>14282851
>notsureiftrollingorjustretarded.gif

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot from 2022-03-05 17-36 (...).png, 47KiB, 766x286

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 01:37:17 No.14282924 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280220
Nope, not true:

31531853193612718459

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot from 2022-03-05 17-39 (...).png, 37KiB, 908x214

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 01:40:19 No.14282931 Report

Quoted By: >>14283108

>>14280220
Nope, not true.

31531853193612718459

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 03:25:27 No.14283108 Report

Quoted By:

>>14282931
Anon...
31531853193612718459 mod 6 = 1
which means 31531853193612718459 = 6k+1 for some k. In fact k = 5255308865602119743.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 06:09:14 No.14283341 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280234
The absolute state of this board

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 06:24:39 No.14283359 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280234
These are the people who tell you a tranny ruined /mg/

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1643701278332.jpg, 114KiB, 1200x900

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 06:27:13 No.14283363 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280234

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 06:52:09 No.14283392 Report

Quoted By:

It's simple really.

a. All primes are integers
b. All integers are 6k±1 for some k=c/6 for some c
ergo
c. All primes are 6k±1

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 171129-slobodan-praljak-mc-1152.jpg, 41KiB, 760x575

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 06:55:18 No.14283401 Report

Quoted By:

>>14281246
This can't be real.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 08:16:40 No.14283521 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280220
What a dumb statement. Here's one too, equally as dumb
>all primes are either 2 or 2x+1

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1643941170864.jpg, 42KiB, 596x520

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 08:18:44 No.14283525 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280234
delete this fucking board

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 10:37:36 No.14283668 Report

Quoted By: >>14283690

>>14280220
What's the complex equivalent of a prime?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 11:03:42 No.14283690 Report

Quoted By:

>>14283668
Gaussian prime

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 11:11:08 No.14283701 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280659
>she actually believes men exist

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 11:30:25 No.14283713 Report

Quoted By: >>14283860

I thought this board was going to be a bit over my head. I come in hear and you retards are arguing over middle school fucking math.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 14:10:25 No.14283860 Report

Quoted By:

>>14283713
A few years ago it was grad students talking about hard science and advanced mathematics. I can't believe how far this board has fallen

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 17:22:31 No.14284170 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280366
>conflating a proposition and its converse
aka affirming the consequent

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 17:28:49 No.14284178 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280883
Silence, retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 17:29:57 No.14284180 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280964
k=-1 slaps your girl on the ass

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 17:49:43 No.14284221 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280248
based

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 18:24:05 No.14284293 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280913
based

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 19:12:27 No.14284362 Report

Quoted By:

prime shit is just for math phd's who need a project, right?
maybe some crypto stuff, but it doesn't seem related to most of the shit i see about primes

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 20:24:17 No.14284524 Report

Quoted By: >>14284525

>>14280220
>can somebody explain the proof behind this?
2 is a factor of 6
3 is a factor of 6
6k +- 2 is an even number
6k +- 3 is 3*(2k-1)
6k +- 4 etc is just the +-2 of k+1/k-1.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 20:25:18 No.14284525 Report

Quoted By:

>>14284524
>6k +- 3 is 3*(2k-1)
2k +- 1

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 20:33:18 No.14284556 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280248
Great explination

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 20:37:13 No.14284577 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280234
based retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Mar 2022 22:54:28 No.14284908 Report

Quoted By:

>>14282203
Dude come on

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Alec.jpg, 18KiB, 545x542

Anonymous Mon 07 Mar 2022 00:34:59 No.14285069 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280234
>/sci/ is now filtered by maths a 6 year old can do
yeah, that's about as much of this fucking board as I can take

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO fug.jpg, 22KiB, 474x489

Anonymous Mon 07 Mar 2022 00:39:22 No.14285081 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280234
we really are one of the worst boards on this entire shithole site

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Mar 2022 00:48:34 No.14285103 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280234
>is neither a factor of 6 nor 6k+-1
Sure it is. Multiply it by 0.5 and you get 6.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Mar 2022 03:48:37 No.14285418 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280234
come on man

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Mar 2022 04:36:45 No.14285482 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280234
nigger

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Mar 2022 06:20:14 No.14285620 Report

Quoted By:

>>14282068
7 = 6(1) + 1

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Mar 2022 19:45:17 No.14286776 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280234
kill yourself promptly

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Mar 2022 21:02:28 No.14286967 Report

Quoted By:

>>14282879
he's retarded but so is the anon he's arguing with, rectangles aren't squares. Squares have all sides the same length, rectangles have unequal lengths

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Mar 2022 21:17:50 No.14287005 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280234
please be bait

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Mar 2022 22:55:56 No.14287198 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280234
>3 is not a factor of 6

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Mar 2022 23:15:47 No.14287237 Report

Quoted By:

>>14282065
Brainlet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Mar 2022 23:18:04 No.14287247 Report

Quoted By: >>14287450

What does "a factor of 6" mean? They are obviously not divisible by 6

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 08 Mar 2022 01:08:20 No.14287450 Report

Quoted By:

>>14287247
6 is divisible by them

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 08 Mar 2022 05:53:04 No.14287870 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280248
This. It's just a trivial result from modulo arithmetic

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1596794821342.jpg, 19KiB, 393x243

Anonymous Tue 08 Mar 2022 07:33:57 No.14288016 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280234

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 08 Mar 2022 22:23:02 No.14289441 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280234
this post made me depressed

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO facethemusic.jpg, 241KiB, 959x936

Anonymous Tue 08 Mar 2022 22:31:16 No.14289455 Report

Quoted By:

>>14280234
Very concerned that you likely have the right to vote.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches