Predicting primes using the Prime (gaps) Line equation [DELETED SCENE]

This video is not sponsored by PIA, but I genuinely think they're neat. So here's the link again in case you are looking for a VPN: privateinternetaccess.com/standupmaths
Original video is over here. This deleted scene would have been at 03:41 exactly where the "Primes Love Logs" interrupt now is. • Exploring the mysterie...
Main channel, folks: / standupmaths

[@catradar]

I like that this video ends with 10 seconds of Matt charging up to shoot a fireball.

[@SeamusMcFlurry]

KAH-ME-HAH-ME.....
....
....
....
IN THE NEXT EPISODE OF DRAGONBALL MATHS...

[@willrehmus9952]

20 seconds actually /s

[@VincentZalzal]

Hadōken!

[@vincentpelletier57]

Does a 15 save?

[@GinoGiotto]

I was wondering why in the original video the primes in the bottom line skipped from 199 to almost 500

[@allanolley4874]

I noticed people were complaining in comments to the original video that he suggested every gap was even when as stated here the gap between 2 and 3 is 1 which is odd. So this actually addresses that by admitting he omitted 2 from his scheme.

[@mattparker2]

Yes, annoyingly: removing this bit caused more of those complaints. But everyone knows 2 is a terrible prime. I’m surprised I let 3 stay.

[@NetAndyCz]

@@mattparker2 I think that the first prime is always bad, no matter whether it is 1, 2, 3, or 5 those small primes behave too orderly.

[@DehimVerveen]

@@NetAndyCz Yea, all primes below 15485863 are terrible!

[@TheDingus42]

Does that mean that 14,486,503 is a Parker prime?

[@michaelcartmell7428]

Can't be, because it actually is prime. Can't believe he didn't notice that. Oh wait, this is past Matt, he keeps missing obvious things.

[@allanolley4874]

@@michaelcartmell7428 That is amazing, he so spectacularly dropped the ball there one has to wonder if it was intentional....

[@mattparker2]

Ha, yes it is prime. I must admit Past Matt didn’t check (this is the sort of thing Future Matt would interrupt for). I was only focussed on it not being the millionth prime. Plus I didn’t put back on the +3.

[@michaelcartmell7428]

@@mattparker2 Well, maybe you Pure Mathematicians can learn something from us Dirty Physicists: Finding what you were not looking for is far more satisfying than finding what you knew was there. The most exciting moments are preceded not by "Eureka", but by "Huh, that's weird".

[@PersonaRandomNumbers]

Now the question is, how do you use this to calculate pi?

[@MrRenanwill]

x=(x/pi)*pi

[@madlad255]

"Feel free to drop me a line" - Matt Parker, 2021

[@twixerclawford]

Matt Parker x Cary Haung is a crossover I always expected but nevertheless love to see

[@0ia]

Cary Haung? I know a Cary Haung. He as a CZcams channel.

[@modernkennnern]

Carykh?

[@davidgould9431]

6.5%? That's phenomenal: if I got that close, my wife would be delighted.

[@elraviv]

well 14,486,503 is the 939,663rd prime so you missed by 60,337 primes...
(yes still a 6% miss over that range, but it's a lot of prime numbers to miss...)

[@snuffesnuffs7777]

691, the most irregular prime! should be easy to remember...

[@Logicallymath]

two words Parker primes

[@kasuha]

I wonder if using every prime as data point in regression p(n) = a+b*c^n wouldn't yield better result.

[@jonmobrien]

Definately the brief detour got bogged down in detailed maths that detracted from the excellent pattern of prime gaps video. However your also cut the explanation of ignoring the first prime gap between 0 and 3, and why in the main video the X axis says GAP/2. Two inconsistencies I noticed. Perhaps future Matt could have just mentioned those two things where you cut this deleted scene from

[@dagordon1]

Instead of one regression, what about multiple regressions with R^2=1? The slopes would be the same, yet the intercepts would follow a bifurcation pattern, true? Matt hinted at it earlier with 6, 30, 210, etc.

[@ludomine7746]

He wasn’t very happy with this video when he was editing it.

[@AgentM124]

Dare I say. Parker Primes?

[@MCLegoboy]

Only in Parker Maths is a near 1 million difference answer seen as a good thing.

[@johnnyllooddte3415]

what is the highest primes, number..ie are we up to a million primes etc

[@qwerty11111122]

Hey, whats the dimension of a three-sided coin, please

[@Xeridanus]

So it's the Parker approximation then? :P

[@SWebster10]

#ReleaseTheParkerCut !

[@Dan99]

Couldn't this be used to work out an upper bound and a lower bound when predicting primes?

[@filipsperl]

as Matt said in the original video, noone knows what happens when you find and plot more primes. Some of the results he mentions suggest that the line either bends weirdly or widens dramatically

[@thinboxdictator6720]

I want to know if there is a third channel

[@KevinBerstene]

I would assume it would be Matt_Parker_3 (though clearly if this is the second channel this should be Matt_Parker_1)

[@spmiles98]

Well there's his dog's channel, if that counts, but I'm not aware of an actual third channel.

[@cacanovotny]

So when we're 6,5% away from a prime, it's a Parker prime.

[@marcosl2871]

No

[@NoNameAtAll2]

@@marcosl2871 yes

[@michaelcartmell7428]

Actually, 14486503 is prime, so he's only 0.0000207% away

[@HasekuraIsuna]

@@michaelcartmell7428 So a Parker Prime is a Prime you just miss when you are looking for another one?

[@arsen3223]

cary huang?

[@aashsyed1277]

Cary wiung

[@johnchessant3012]

carykh!?

[@GoranNewsum]

14486500 = Parker Prime?

[@benoitbompol9841]

3:08
I don't understand the factor 2 here.
Can someone explain ?
Thanks

[@mattparker2]

Because on the ‘x axis’ I had the value of gap/2. (So this way there is a data point every number, not every second number.)

[@benoitbompol9841]

@@mattparker2 I see, thanks !

[@robertthompson3447]

Could you spend a video on "The Bible and Maths"?