one epiphany i had a few hours ago is that the reason q = 2p + 1 always generates another prime is emphatically not so much the 2p term, but the +1. the integer +1 is essentially the point at infinity for the integers
9
Replies
0
Boosts
@hipsterelectron wait wait wait what about
27 = 2*13 + 1
every prime number > 1 describes a period (which can easily be analogized to a synchronization of orbits) of some process. composites > 1 match up against multiple shorter periods. when you transform these to operations in a finite field F_q by performing integer arithmetic (mod q), you can see that addition terms like a * q + k correspond to phase offsets in a periodic orbit
the euclidean proof of the infinitude of primes (the one that i'm aware of) merely states:
[by contradiction]
- say the cardinality of the set of natural primes > 1 |{P_N}| is finite
- let
q =( \Pi_{p_i \in P_N} p_i) + 1.\Pi_{p_i}must converge to a finite product- yet
q"clearly" cannot be divided by any member ofP_N- QED
this still kinda dissatisfied me (how do we know +1 is special like that?) until i considered the periodic orbits analogy
see this is also why the "natural" numbers are actually incredibly un natural imho. whereas finite fields and the complex plane naturally encode periodicity and phase offsets, the set [1,∞) is completely "unrolled" by comparison. what does it mean to add a number at all?
i had a lot of thoughts in response to this correct post https://types.pl/@amy/117203193831178704
as of late i have begun to feel that the imaginary component of so-called "complex" numbers is strikingly similar to irrationality and indeed that the "unique" factorization into prime integers or polynomials with integer coefficients is much closer to a parlor trick than a rigid basis for classification
like the irrationals are only secondarily "irrational" and more simply "antipolynomial" i feel like? i read an attempted motivation for the irrationality of
sqrt(2)arising from euclidean-era geometry recently but i didn't really buy it since i don't feel "exactness" or "equality" is really a "natural" concept outside of the cartesian plane, which itself feels remarkably circular in definition?like if even the prime numbers refuse to decompose their own sequential structure into any kind of rhythmic progression, maybe that's because "solutions among the rationals" is requiring the answer be sufficiently *un*interesting?
learning much more about group theory recently and i totally do accept that the generating graph of modular exponentiations in a finite field is intrinsically meaningful to study even if it's not a "nice" answer for my purposes. but finding that finite fields
F_qfor primes p < q s.t.q = 2p + 1are not just a meme way to generate new primes at will (which i didn't know you could do????) but are also optimally resistant to computational factorization attacks on the discrete log problem has me feeling like twin primes just aren't very interesting?like if generating the next prime is unsolvable but just finding a later prime is both simple and deeply meaningful, maybe that's because a difference of integer
+kis not intrinsically meaningful except as a phase offset wiithin a periodic context?like forget
sqrt(-1), the really unnatural "point at infinity" seems to be the integer+1, since that's precisely what's necessary for the infinitude of primes!!!
if we add +2 to a number n \in [1,∞), we're adding a phase offset that (if repeated) would eventually generate periodic behavior, and similarly for all n >= 2. but what the hell does adding +1 mean?
similarly, repeated multiplication of a by 1 (say, in a finite field F_q will never generate any value distinct from a, even "infinitely" many times
so the fact that we can just "add 1" to the result of multiplying primes in N = [1,∞) is beginning to feel circular
and by the way, the cartesian plane makes absolutely no goddamn fucking sense. it is the most artificial construct. a cross-hatched lattice with perfect right angles at all mesh intersections? i don't believe you can even define the cartesian plane without incorporating a hidden circular assumption involving the limits of sequences tending towards infinity
