[math-fun] Eight prime square theorem?
Lagrange's four square theorem states that every nonnegative integer is a sum of four squares. Empirically, it looks as if every nonnegative integer is a sum of 8 squares of primes (counting 1 as prime). It looks as if arbitrarily large numbers require 8 terms.
If 1 is not counted as the square of a prime, then nonnegative numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, 23 are not a sum of squares of primes (specifically, not a sum of terms equal to 4 or 9). It looks as if at most 8 squares of primes are sufficient to add to any other nonnegative number, and are necessary for certain arbitrarily large numbers.
-----Original Message----- From: math-fun [mailto:math-fun-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of David Wilson Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 8:30 PM To: 'math-fun' Subject: [math-fun] Eight prime square theorem?
Lagrange's four square theorem states that every nonnegative integer is a sum of four squares. Empirically, it looks as if every nonnegative integer is a sum of 8 squares of primes (counting 1 as prime). It looks as if arbitrarily large numbers require 8 terms.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
Very interesting! (Which of course also brings up the question of sums of kth prime powers for any given k.) Dumb question: What is the exact meaning of "8 squares of primes are necessary for certain arbitrarily large numbers" ? Does this mean the set of numbers requiring eight prime squares is unbounded ? Or something else? —Dan
On Sep 7, 2016, at 5:47 PM, David Wilson <davidwwilson@comcast.net> wrote:
If 1 is not counted as the square of a prime, then nonnegative numbers
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, 23
are not a sum of squares of primes (specifically, not a sum of terms equal to 4 or 9).
It looks as if at most 8 squares of primes are sufficient to add to any other nonnegative number, and are necessary for certain arbitrarily large numbers.
-----Original Message----- From: math-fun [mailto:math-fun-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of David Wilson Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 8:30 PM To: 'math-fun' Subject: [math-fun] Eight prime square theorem?
Lagrange's four square theorem states that every nonnegative integer is a sum of four squares. Empirically, it looks as if every nonnegative integer is a sum of 8 squares of primes (counting 1 as prime). It looks as if arbitrarily large numbers require 8 terms.
Yes. If 1 is not admitted as a square prime, a few values <= 23 cannot be represented. The numbers requiring 8 terms starts off 32, 795, 803, 811, ... and seems to slowly grow denser. On the range 0 <= n <= 10^7, 334119 values require 8 terms, the last being 9999937. No values require 9 or more terms. On that basis, it seems reasonable to conjecture that 8 terms is necessary and sufficient.
-----Original Message----- From: math-fun [mailto:math-fun-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Dan Asimov Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 1:58 AM To: math-fun Subject: Re: [math-fun] Eight prime square theorem?
Very interesting! (Which of course also brings up the question of sums of kth prime powers for any given k.)
Dumb question: What is the exact meaning of "8 squares of primes are necessary for certain arbitrarily large numbers" ?
Does this mean the set of numbers requiring eight prime squares is unbounded ? Or something else?
—Dan
On Sep 7, 2016, at 5:47 PM, David Wilson <davidwwilson@comcast.net> wrote:
If 1 is not counted as the square of a prime, then nonnegative numbers
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, 23
are not a sum of squares of primes (specifically, not a sum of terms equal to 4 or 9).
It looks as if at most 8 squares of primes are sufficient to add to any other nonnegative number, and are necessary for certain arbitrarily large numbers.
-----Original Message----- From: math-fun [mailto:math-fun-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of David Wilson Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 8:30 PM To: 'math-fun' Subject: [math-fun] Eight prime square theorem?
Lagrange's four square theorem states that every nonnegative integer is a sum of four squares. Empirically, it looks as if every nonnegative integer is a sum of 8 squares of primes (counting 1 as prime). It looks as if arbitrarily large numbers require 8 terms.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
Are you including 2 as a prime? --Rich ________________________________________ From: math-fun [math-fun-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] on behalf of David Wilson [davidwwilson@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 8:09 PM To: 'math-fun' Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [math-fun] Eight prime square theorem? Yes. If 1 is not admitted as a square prime, a few values <= 23 cannot be represented. The numbers requiring 8 terms starts off 32, 795, 803, 811, ... and seems to slowly grow denser. On the range 0 <= n <= 10^7, 334119 values require 8 terms, the last being 9999937. No values require 9 or more terms. On that basis, it seems reasonable to conjecture that 8 terms is necessary and sufficient.
-----Original Message----- From: math-fun [mailto:math-fun-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Dan Asimov Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 1:58 AM To: math-fun Subject: Re: [math-fun] Eight prime square theorem?
Very interesting! (Which of course also brings up the question of sums of kth prime powers for any given k.)
Dumb question: What is the exact meaning of "8 squares of primes are necessary for certain arbitrarily large numbers" ?
Does this mean the set of numbers requiring eight prime squares is unbounded ? Or something else?
—Dan
On Sep 7, 2016, at 5:47 PM, David Wilson <davidwwilson@comcast.net> wrote:
If 1 is not counted as the square of a prime, then nonnegative numbers
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, 23
are not a sum of squares of primes (specifically, not a sum of terms equal to 4 or 9).
It looks as if at most 8 squares of primes are sufficient to add to any other nonnegative number, and are necessary for certain arbitrarily large numbers.
-----Original Message----- From: math-fun [mailto:math-fun-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of David Wilson Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 8:30 PM To: 'math-fun' Subject: [math-fun] Eight prime square theorem?
Lagrange's four square theorem states that every nonnegative integer is a sum of four squares. Empirically, it looks as if every nonnegative integer is a sum of 8 squares of primes (counting 1 as prime). It looks as if arbitrarily large numbers require 8 terms.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
Yes, 2 is considered prime.
-----Original Message----- From: math-fun [mailto:math-fun-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Schroeppel, Richard Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 12:03 AM To: math-fun Cc: rcs@xmission.com; Schroeppel, Richard Subject: Re: [math-fun] [EXTERNAL] Re: Eight prime square theorem?
Are you including 2 as a prime? --Rich ________________________________________ From: math-fun [math-fun-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] on behalf of David Wilson [davidwwilson@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 8:09 PM To: 'math-fun' Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [math-fun] Eight prime square theorem?
Yes. If 1 is not admitted as a square prime, a few values <= 23 cannot be represented. The numbers requiring 8 terms starts off 32, 795, 803, 811, ... and seems to slowly grow denser. On the range 0 <= n <= 10^7, 334119 values require 8 terms, the last being 9999937. No values require 9 or more terms.
On that basis, it seems reasonable to conjecture that 8 terms is necessary and sufficient.
-----Original Message----- From: math-fun [mailto:math-fun-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Dan Asimov Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 1:58 AM To: math-fun Subject: Re: [math-fun] Eight prime square theorem?
Very interesting! (Which of course also brings up the question of sums of kth prime powers for any given k.)
Dumb question: What is the exact meaning of "8 squares of primes are necessary for certain arbitrarily large numbers" ?
Does this mean the set of numbers requiring eight prime squares is unbounded ? Or something else?
-Dan
On Sep 7, 2016, at 5:47 PM, David Wilson <davidwwilson@comcast.net> wrote:
If 1 is not counted as the square of a prime, then nonnegative numbers
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, 23
are not a sum of squares of primes (specifically, not a sum of terms equal to 4 or 9).
It looks as if at most 8 squares of primes are sufficient to add to any other nonnegative number, and are necessary for certain arbitrarily large numbers.
-----Original Message----- From: math-fun [mailto:math-fun-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of David Wilson Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 8:30 PM To: 'math-fun' Subject: [math-fun] Eight prime square theorem?
Lagrange's four square theorem states that every nonnegative integer is a sum of four squares. Empirically, it looks as if every nonnegative integer is a sum of 8 squares of primes (counting 1 as prime). It looks as if arbitrarily large numbers require 8 terms.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
participants (3)
-
Dan Asimov -
David Wilson -
Schroeppel, Richard