A Prime Surprise (Mertens Conjecture) - Numberphile
video description
Sure energy may have its' local pixilation due to Hubble effects and our current location to the proximity of the center of the galaxy, at the moment. The wells of time are very deep and may be many in the past and fortuitously fortified into the future. This is just a -Particle/Atomic- point of view of physical reality, for practical reasons.
I think my point of view is a string theory one. Yet, i think its all a flash like a holographic matrix. I call any point of observation in it a Susskind Filed. I have a bad habit of pet naming things. If you ever listen to one of Professor Susskind's videos you will see exactly what I'm talking about! He has laser observation.
It still wouldn't solve the Million dollar question though. Why 0 is not really 0 currently in space time. That could be because of Andromeda's gravitational influence or other galaxy influences directly on us atm. Now that would solve that case, in reason.
There's a lot I could add to this.
Date: 2022-04-09
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
David
Just a Conjecture or really a guess, that there's no such number except for the -ideal- projection, because all information is conditional on sync-duration phase-shifting of e-Pi-i omnidirectional-dimensional logarithmic primary condensation in singularity coordination/positioning, ie it's just a suspicion about the natural, observable limitations of ideals => -i-, in this Eternity-now Interval.
In which learning by doing experience => remembered sync-duration connectivity association tuning to AM-FM Timing-spacing coordination Communication with Intuitive -Everything-, ideally.
The Conjecture about how many point-positioning locations can be abstracted from anything of -size-, is of course infinite, only the size is relatively fixed forever, because the dynamical universe of pure relative motion is formed in/of Logarithmic Time, .AM-FM Communication Quantum-fields Mechanism Condensation, => 1-0-infinity transverse trancendental e-Pi probability i-reflection contained Superspin coherence-cohesion size-proportioning = resonance objectives.
reply
Just a Conjecture or really a guess, that there's no such number except for the -ideal- projection, because all information is conditional on sync-duration phase-shifting of e-Pi-i omnidirectional-dimensional logarithmic primary condensation in singularity coordination/positioning, ie it's just a suspicion about the natural, observable limitations of ideals => -i-, in this Eternity-now Interval.
In which learning by doing experience => remembered sync-duration connectivity association tuning to AM-FM Timing-spacing coordination Communication with Intuitive -Everything-, ideally.
The Conjecture about how many point-positioning locations can be abstracted from anything of -size-, is of course infinite, only the size is relatively fixed forever, because the dynamical universe of pure relative motion is formed in/of Logarithmic Time, .AM-FM Communication Quantum-fields Mechanism Condensation, => 1-0-infinity transverse trancendental e-Pi probability i-reflection contained Superspin coherence-cohesion size-proportioning = resonance objectives.
reply
Rupert
Great video. My hunch though it that it's totally not true that all the atoms in the universe couldn't be arranged to represent the number. Totally true that there are not enough to be used to make ink to write the number in tiny digits. But. say 10-80 baryons - in the universe. Each can be arranged in space to an accuracy of a plank length - 10--35 meters, across 10-18 meters (diameter of the observable universe) in three dimensions. In other words if the position in space of a particle is used to represent a number then we have = 10-35+18+3 = 10-56 possible values for that 'digit'. So we have 10-80 digits in base 10-56 and 10-56-80 is the maximum number that can be expressed. This is comfortably larger than 10-10-40. Except more than one particle cannot meaningfully be in the same location (there's no where to stack them) and that messes things up.
reply
Great video. My hunch though it that it's totally not true that all the atoms in the universe couldn't be arranged to represent the number. Totally true that there are not enough to be used to make ink to write the number in tiny digits. But. say 10-80 baryons - in the universe. Each can be arranged in space to an accuracy of a plank length - 10--35 meters, across 10-18 meters (diameter of the observable universe) in three dimensions. In other words if the position in space of a particle is used to represent a number then we have = 10-35+18+3 = 10-56 possible values for that 'digit'. So we have 10-80 digits in base 10-56 and 10-56-80 is the maximum number that can be expressed. This is comfortably larger than 10-10-40. Except more than one particle cannot meaningfully be in the same location (there's no where to stack them) and that messes things up.
reply
Raven
hmm i know root n is approx stdev of brownian motion, i would imagine that there is some pull in the organizations of primes which pulls them back into the pattern like rotating around a clock.
i would just imagine as numbers grow the distance between cycles is ever larger. and allows more noise.
idfk, its actually incredibly weird that -it does not happen earlier-, 2 -stdev - 95 percentile. so u would assume if it were a pure gaussian process it would have happened -much earlier-
reply
hmm i know root n is approx stdev of brownian motion, i would imagine that there is some pull in the organizations of primes which pulls them back into the pattern like rotating around a clock.
i would just imagine as numbers grow the distance between cycles is ever larger. and allows more noise.
idfk, its actually incredibly weird that -it does not happen earlier-, 2 -stdev - 95 percentile. so u would assume if it were a pure gaussian process it would have happened -much earlier-
reply
boredgrass
I love Dr. Kriegers explanatiobs and Numberphile, but here I'm lost. My problem:
Quote: - add up these numbers- Which numbers are added up in -M-? No clue! I think, Introducing unexplained elements in a demonstration of math is THE main factor of kicking people out of math. Very often what is missing, is what relates to what. And it doesn't help when such relation is ckear to the mathematician! It needs to be -clear- in the mind trying to follow the explanation.
reply
I love Dr. Kriegers explanatiobs and Numberphile, but here I'm lost. My problem:
Quote: - add up these numbers- Which numbers are added up in -M-? No clue! I think, Introducing unexplained elements in a demonstration of math is THE main factor of kicking people out of math. Very often what is missing, is what relates to what. And it doesn't help when such relation is ckear to the mathematician! It needs to be -clear- in the mind trying to follow the explanation.
reply
onehit
Nice video, but I didn't quite understand the connection to the number of atoms in the universe. We commonly represent (and can write down) numbers much larger than this. I could understand the assertion that we could not reach it by counting on a computer, because there are not enough clock cycles, but I don't understand the assertion that we can't represent a number. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the assertion.
reply
Nice video, but I didn't quite understand the connection to the number of atoms in the universe. We commonly represent (and can write down) numbers much larger than this. I could understand the assertion that we could not reach it by counting on a computer, because there are not enough clock cycles, but I don't understand the assertion that we can't represent a number. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the assertion.
reply
Kien
How does 10-10-40 take more than number of atoms in universe to write down? Isn't that -just- 1, followed by 10 thousand trillion trillion trillion zeroes? If everyone on earth write one zero every second, for a billion years, that would take around 40 trillion planets like us to complete such a feat. Isn't that somehow. -feasible-?
reply
How does 10-10-40 take more than number of atoms in universe to write down? Isn't that -just- 1, followed by 10 thousand trillion trillion trillion zeroes? If everyone on earth write one zero every second, for a billion years, that would take around 40 trillion planets like us to complete such a feat. Isn't that somehow. -feasible-?
reply
Josh
I'm pretty sure the large number could be written down in this universe, cause it only has 10-40+1 digits (1 followed by 10-40 zeroes. So while it's much larger than the number of atoms in the universe, it shouldn't have that many digits. Why, it should only take a few star masses with each atom representing a zero!
reply
I'm pretty sure the large number could be written down in this universe, cause it only has 10-40+1 digits (1 followed by 10-40 zeroes. So while it's much larger than the number of atoms in the universe, it shouldn't have that many digits. Why, it should only take a few star masses with each atom representing a zero!
reply
MarcoMate87
Now some natural questions come to mind:
1)How many of these numbers such that M(n) > sqrt(n) exist? Is it known if they are maybe infinitely many?
2)Is there another boundary function f(n) larger than sqrt(n) but smaller than n such that M(n) < f(n) for all natural n's?
reply
Now some natural questions come to mind:
1)How many of these numbers such that M(n) > sqrt(n) exist? Is it known if they are maybe infinitely many?
2)Is there another boundary function f(n) larger than sqrt(n) but smaller than n such that M(n) < f(n) for all natural n's?
reply
sharpfang
What I'm finding surprising is that the graph doesn't flatten out significantly. I'd expect as numbers grow bigger and primes get more sparse, the amount of numbers with repeated prime factors would skyrocket-- but it doesn't; -1 and +1 aren't significantly more rare than 0's.
reply
What I'm finding surprising is that the graph doesn't flatten out significantly. I'd expect as numbers grow bigger and primes get more sparse, the amount of numbers with repeated prime factors would skyrocket-- but it doesn't; -1 and +1 aren't significantly more rare than 0's.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
