Prime numbers have fascinated mathematicians for centuries with their unpredictable and seemingly random distribution. In a breaker print studyresearchers came up with a new method that boosts our hunt for caged values, but also reveals the limits of our ability to detect them.
Prime numbers are only divisible by 1 and themselves. They serve as the “atoms” of mathematics, capable of decomposing other numbers into factors (eg 12 = 2 × 2 × 3). As the numbers grow, it becomes more and more difficult to identify the first ones. If you were to ask, “How many primes are there between 1 and 1,000?” where would you start
The classic Sieve of Eratosthenes provides a starting point. This ancient technique systematically eliminates multiples of each prime, allowing only the primes themselves to “fall in”. Mathematicians call the eliminated multiples “Type I information,” which can help predict how many prime numbers are in a given range. However, this information is limited. “Sometimes you have good Type I information that you might expect, but you still can’t find a prime number,” explained study author Kevin Ford, a mathematician at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
About supporting science journalism
If you like this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism subscribe. By purchasing a subscription, you’re helping to ensure a future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas that shape our world.
Ford and Oxford University mathematician James Maynard provide a powerful method for studying the primes of large sets by calculating exactly which primes should be within them. The work combines two complementary approaches: Type I information of omitted numbers (such as drawing all multiples of 2, then 3, and so on) and accounting for numbers that are drawn multiple times (such as the way it appears in 6 lists). of multiples of both 2 and 3)—so-called type II information.
Mathematicians can adjust how they weight each type of information to get the most accurate count of primes in a given range. But by carefully tuning these two knobs, the paper’s authors discovered that there are fundamental limits: precise mathematical limits where no further adjustment can improve the accuracy of our counting, revealing deep truths about how these numbers are distributed along the number line.
The study equates the accuracy, or “informational strength” of these estimates for a set, to changing the mesh size of a sieve: too small, and you’ll catch all the numbers; too big, and the first ones will pass. The work “directly and directly addresses what information is ‘good enough’ to detect primes,” says mathematician Kaisa Matomäki, who studies the distribution of primes at the University of Turku in Finland. Understanding the constraints when designing a sieve is key to developing a complete theory of prime numbers, adds Princeton University mathematician Peter Sarnak, an expert on prime sieve theory: “Finding the unobtainable is fundamental.”
Ford hopes this method will help researchers tackle long-standing open problems. “Premiums are distributed in a very, very, mysterious way, so we’re trying to push our understanding a little bit.”
