7 ms·
It's an interesting heuristic, but I think your limitation that it be less than the square of the Nth prime is a case of overfitting. Here's a list of results
by nick-parker 11y ago
It's an interesting heuristic, but I think your limitation that it be less than the square of the Nth prime is a case of overfitting.
Here's a list of results for the first N primes, for different Ns:
3: 7
4: 11
5: 13
6: 17
7: 107
8: 41
9: 157
10: 1811
11: 1579
12: 18859
13: 95533
14: 310469
15: 1995293
16: 208303
17: 2396687
18: 58513111
19: 299808329
20: 2933961157
21: 3952306763
22: 33298242781
23: 115405393057
I just wrote a script to brute force all combinations here, so the 24th iteration got very slow, but of all those the nonprime ones are n=23, 19, 18, 16, 14, and 13.
So, your rule appears to hold true as long as N is less than the cube of the Nth prime. The actual rule is probably more complex than a simple power, considering 83^5 is far less than the result in N=23.
I think I'll play with this a bit more this evening then ping some mathematician friends about it. They always love playing with weird properties of primes.
- phkahler 11y ago>> It's an interesting heuristic, but I think your limitation that it be less than the square of the Nth prime is a case of overfitting. Maybe, but the result is obviously guaranteed to not be a multiple of any of the N primes. Since the smallest factor has to be greater than N, that means prime for up to N^2 (or (N+1)^2 I suppose).
- phkahler 11y agoConfused N for P_n in that.