7

# Is there any exact way to get the product of all primes under n multiplied together, without explicitly knowing what those primes are? Lets call this number V. Because hypothethetically, if we calculate from the *base* of V, then we can derive easy divisibility rules for V-1 and V+1, as laid out here:https://notaboutapples.wordpress.com/... And then, unless I've misunderstood something, the problem of factorization has been changed from division into an addition and subtraction problem.

• 8
I see you have moved from crack to meth. ;-)
• 4
@Demolishun I dont do drugs. I dont need to. I'm high on life!

And math.

Not meth.

Math.
• 1
I don't think there is a general formula, otherwise it would have maid factorization much easier
• 1
@Wisecrack

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I used to have a book on some English mythology. It was always fascinating. So I like to name wizards in RPGs Math.
• 3
@iiii "Maid" factorization, you say...? ðŸ¤”
• 5
Hurkt urn fernux wurkt four mi
• 1
• 2
@sariel fucking nailed it. ðŸ‘Œ
• -1
NO YOU FUCKING LESS THAN FIRST YEAR WITHOUT FACTORING!
• 1
I knew instantly that this rant is written by you, Wisecrack! ðŸ˜„
Reminds me of that one rant where you thought that you found a way to quickly do prime factorization.

Even though I don’t know much about that topic, I’ll say that I have seen enough numberphile to be confident that factorization cannot be reduced to addition and subtraction. There is so much research on that topic that it would have been discovered already if it was possible.
• 1
@Lensflare actually the "easy" part is taking v and finding divisibility rules for it +/- n
Where n is some product p - v

Why factor v instead of p though?
I guess I didnt explain. That's my fault. I Tend to jump to conclusions.

Being able to find and factor v let's us set a *very tight bound* on what the smaller factor of p is (assuming p is the product of two non trivial primes)

Hence why I asked about finding the product of all factors under some value without having to do the whole chain.

Because for example I know there are methods for doing something similar with the fibonacci sequence (find the value at index n), or finding the nth digit of pi for example.

A lot of these are shitposts, occasionally though they are genuine ignorance. And rarely, they're thought exercises: the goal is to ask "what if this improbably thing were approached from this unexpected angle?"

Also numberphile is great. Glad to find another fan.
• 1
@Wisecrack also Mathologer and 3blue1brown