Mathematicians hunting prime numbers discover infinite new pattern

2025-06-193:28162100www.scientificamerican.com

Using a notion called integer partitions, mathematicians have discovered a new way to detect prime numbers while also connecting two areas of math in an unexpected way

For centuries, prime numbers have captured the imaginations of mathematicians, who continue to search for new patterns that help identify them and the way they’re distributed among other numbers. Primes are whole numbers that are greater than 1 and are divisible by only 1 and themselves. The three smallest prime numbers are 2, 3 and 5. It's easy to find out if small numbers are prime—one simply needs to check what numbers can factor them. When mathematicians consider large numbers, however, the task of discerning which ones are prime quickly mushrooms in difficulty. Although it might be practical to check if, say, the numbers 10 or 1,000 have more than two factors, that strategy is unfavorable or even untenable for checking if gigantic numbers are prime or composite. For instance, the largest known prime number, which is 2136279841 − 1, is 41,024,320 digits long. At first, that number may seem mind-bogglingly large. Given that there are infinitely many positive integers of all different sizes, however, this number is minuscule compared with even larger primes.

Furthermore, mathematicians want to do more than just tediously attempt to factor numbers one by one to determine if any given integer is prime. “We’re interested in the prime numbers because there are infinitely many of them, but it’s very difficult to identify any patterns in them,” says Ken Ono, a mathematician at the University of Virginia. Still, one main goal is to determine how prime numbers are distributed within larger sets of numbers.

Recently, Ono and two of his colleagues—William Craig, a mathematician at the U.S. Naval Academy, and Jan-Willem van Ittersum, a mathematician at the University of Cologne in Germany—identified a whole new approach for finding prime numbers. “We have described infinitely many new kinds of criteria for exactly determining the set of prime numbers, all of which are very different from ‘If you can’t factor it, it must be prime,’” Ono says. He and his colleagues’ paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, was runner-up for a physical science prize that recognizes scientific excellence and originality. In some sense, the finding offers an infinite number of new definitions for what it means for numbers to be prime, Ono notes.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

At the heart of the team’s strategy is a notion called integer partitions. “The theory of partitions is very old,” Ono says. It dates back to the 18th-century Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler, and it has continued to be expanded and refined by mathematicians over time. “Partitions, at first glance, seem to be the stuff of child’s play,” Ono says. “How many ways can you add up numbers to get other numbers?” For instance, the number 5 has seven partitions: 4 + 1, 3 + 2, 3 + 1 + 1, 2 + 2 + 1, 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 and 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1.

Yet the concept turns out to be powerful as a hidden key that unlocks new ways of detecting primes. “It is remarkable that such a classical combinatorial object—the partition function—can be used to detect primes in this novel way,” says Kathrin Bringmann, a mathematician at the University of Cologne. (Bringmann has worked with Ono and Craig before, and she’s currently van Ittersum’s postdoctoral adviser, but she wasn’t involved with this research.) Ono notes that the idea for this approach originated in a question posed by one of his former students, Robert Schneider, who’s now a mathematician at Michigan Technological University.

Ono, Craig and van Ittersum proved that prime numbers are the solutions of an infinite number of a particular type of polynomial equation in partition functions. Named Diophantine equations after third-century mathematician Diophantus of Alexandria (and studied long before him), these expressions can have integer solutions or rational ones (meaning they can be written as a fraction). In other words, the finding shows that “integer partitions detect the primes in infinitely many natural ways,” the researchers wrote in their PNAS paper.

George Andrews, a mathematician at Pennsylvania State University, who edited the PNAS paper but wasn’t involved with the research, describes the finding as “something that's brand new” and “not something that was anticipated,” making it difficult to predict “where it will lead.”

The discovery goes beyond probing the distribution of prime numbers. “We’re actually nailing all the prime numbers on the nose,” Ono says. In this method, you can plug an integer that is 2 or larger into particular equations, and if they are true, then the integer is prime. One such equation is (3n3 − 13n2 + 18n − 8)M1(n) + (12n2 − 120n + 212)M2(n) − 960M3(n) = 0, where M1(n), M2(n) and M3(n) are well-studied partition functions. “More generally,” for a particular type of partition function, “we prove that there are infinitely many such prime detecting equations with constant coefficients,” the researchers wrote in their PNAS paper. Put more simply, “it’s almost like our work gives you infinitely many new definitions for prime,” Ono says. “That’s kind of mind-blowing.”

The team’s findings could lead to many new discoveries, Bringmann notes. “Beyond its intrinsic mathematical interest, this work may inspire further investigations into the surprising algebraic or analytic properties hidden in combinatorial functions,” she says. In combinatorics—the mathematics of counting—combinatorial functions are used to describe the number of ways that items in sets can be chosen or arranged. “More broadly, it shows the richness of connections in mathematics,” she adds. “These kinds of results often stimulate fresh thinking across subfields.”

Bringmann suggests some potential ways that mathematicians could build on the research. For instance, they could explore what other types of mathematical structures could be found using partition functions or look for ways that the main result could be expanded to study different types of numbers. “Are there generalizations of the main result to other sequences, such as composite numbers or values of arithmetic functions?” she asks.

“Ken Ono is, in my opinion, one of the most exciting mathematicians around today,” Andrews says. "This isn’t the first time that he has seen into a classic problem and brought really new things to light.”

There remains a glut of open questions about prime numbers, many of which are long-standing. Two examples are the twin prime conjecture and Goldbach’s conjecture. The twin prime conjecture states that there are infinitely many twin primes—prime numbers that are separated by a value of two. The numbers 5 and 7 are twin primes, as are 11 and 13. Goldbach’s conjecture states that “every even number bigger than 2 is a sum of two primes in at least one way,” Ono says. But no one has proven this conjecture to be true.

“Problems like that have befuddled mathematicians and number theorists for generations, almost throughout the entire history of number theory,” Ono says. Although his team’s recent finding doesn’t solve those problems, he says, it’s a profound example of how mathematicians are pushing boundaries to better understand the mysterious nature of prime numbers.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By munichpavel 2025-06-2116:33

    Ken Ono, one of the authors, is the mathematician behind the University of Virginia women's swimming team's dominance in recent years, including world records and gold medals.

    https://news.virginia.edu/content/faculty-spotlight-math-pro...

  • By wewewedxfgdf 2025-06-214:485 reply

    This sort of thing makes me feel there is some deep understanding of reality only inches away from us, we glimpse it through these patterns but the secret remains hidden.

    • By dcow 2025-06-2112:523 reply

      I don’t think this understanding will be related to the structure of reality but instead the structure of discrete math. Math is not an observed property of reality it’s a system of describing quantities and relations between them, often with plenty of practical application. Math is applied philosophy and physics is applied math.

      • By bmacho 2025-06-2113:062 reply

        Discrete math is the single most "observed property of reality", and nothing else comes even close.

        • By hausrat 2025-06-2114:483 reply

          The very notion of discreteness depends on subjective definitions of "objects". We take concepts of objects for granted because they make interacting with the world tractable, but it's really hard to define them outside of minds.

          • By feoren 2025-06-2116:191 reply

            No, discrete math is exactly the same regardless of your definition of "object". It is completely independent of that. Discrete math is important to any theoretical beings that have any concept of "objects" whatsoever. It would be mostly irrelevant to entities that have no such conception, but those entities are not writing math papers.

            • By dcow 2025-06-2312:47

              Which is exactly why I initially suggested that the structure of primes has more to do with how theoretical beings count than with how the universe propagates state.

          • By random3 2025-06-2116:231 reply

            No, the discreetness comes from physical experiments. I do see a problem defining something outside of one’s mind or outside the universe though :)

            • By IAmBroom 2025-06-2314:23

              Discreetness only comes from experiments carried out in secret laboritories.

              Pronounce "lah-BORE-i-tories", obviously.

          • By yunwal 2025-06-2115:162 reply

            As far as we know, the universe is made up of discrete units and any other type of math is an abstraction over discrete math.

            • By giardini 2025-06-2115:271 reply

              As far as we know, the universe is a single unity, and any discrete units and any other type of math are human distinctions overlaid upon that unity.

              • By random3 2025-06-2116:162 reply

                Can you explain what you mean here? I mean yes there’s a universe so it can be see as a unit. There’s also quantum mechanics, telling us we can only distinguish discrete objects at the bottom of the scale. Can you give an example of a non-human distinction, or explain what you mean by that concept?

                • By giardini 2025-06-2415:55

                  Yes. It was a parody of yunwal's post (which I possibly should have cc'ed). . Reread yunwai's post and mine together and you will understand.

                  Endless "unity...discrete" discussions have arisen in both science and philosophy since the beginning.

                • By IAmBroom 2025-06-2314:24

                  I assume the post is missing its "/s".

            • By Keyframe 2025-06-2116:151 reply

              I thought it was a smooth continuous manifold

              • By datameta 2025-06-2116:352 reply

                To what extent are the Planck length and Planck second confirmed smallest discrete units?

                • By Keyframe 2025-06-2120:441 reply

                  I was referring to spacetime in GR is modeled as smooth continuous manifold. In case you're serious though, planck length are not some fine-grained pixels/voxels in the cartesian 3d world, at least not confirmed; in-fact planck units are derived scales.

                • By thot_experiment 2025-06-2123:411 reply

                  I'm not a physicist, but I think those are the smallest units in the sense that they are the smallest units we could theoretically interact with/measure, not some hard limit. It's just that it's moot to consider anything smaller because there's no way for us to ever know.

                  • By datameta 2025-06-2215:231 reply

                    Is that because we see no way to bootstrap equipment down so many magnitudes of scale, not even close - or is it something else?

                    • By narnarpapadaddy 2025-06-2220:431 reply

                      Any given model has less fidelity than reality. An atlas map of the US has less detail than the actual terrain. The Planck constants represent the maximal fidelity possible with the standard model of physics. We can’t model shorter timeframes or smaller sizes, so we can’t predict what happens at scales that small. Building equipment the can measure something so small is difficult too… how do you measure something when you don’t know what to look for?

                      It may be that one day we come up with a more refined model. But as of today, it’s not clear how that would happen or if it’s even possible.

                      Imagine going from 4K to 8k to 16k resolution and then beyond. At some point a “pixel” to represent part of an image doesn’t make sense anymore, but what do you use instead? Nobody currently knows.

                      • By narnarpapadaddy 2025-06-230:06

                        One addendum / clarification:

                        It may also be that "space" and "time" are emergent properties, much like an "apple" is "just" a description of a particular conglomeration of molecules. If we get past Planck scales it may turn that out that there are no such things as "space" and "time" and the Planck constants are irrelevant. We currently don't know but there _are_ a few theoretical frameworks that have yet to be empirically verified, like string theory.

        • By swayvil 2025-06-2113:184 reply

          I for one never saw a "number 2" in the wild. But I'm a homebody.

          • By alphazard 2025-06-2113:285 reply

            If I handed you 1 apple, and then handed you another apple, you wouldn't be surprised to find that you had 2 apples. The same trick works with oranges and pears.

            • By FredPret 2025-06-2114:243 reply

              > If I handed you 1 apple,

              At this point I hold one object that we agree to label "apple". Note that even seeing it as a single object is a layer of abstraction. In reality it's a clump of fundamental particles temporarily banding together

              > and then handed you another apple,

              What's "another apple"? What does it have in common with the thing I'm already holding? We label this thing to be also an apple, but it's a totally different set of atoms, from a different tree, perhaps from the other side of the planet. Perhaps the atoms formed in stellar processes light years away from that of the other apple.

              Calling both of these things "apple" is a required first step to having two of them, but that is an of abstraction, a mental trick we use to simplify the world so we can represent it in our minds.

              I'm not a particle physicist but I hear electrons *can* be counted without any unwitting help from our lower-level neural circuitry.

              • By majkinetor 2025-06-2420:181 reply

                Very nicely said.

                However, what about virtual things, e.g. apples in a computer game.

                • By FredPret 2025-06-251:291 reply

                  There are no virtual things! Every computer / imaginary apple is represented by real electrons on a drive / chemicals in a brain. Even if we are a simulation, we also have to ultimately be represented by something real.

                  • By majkinetor 2025-06-257:00

                    It seems that there are no real things either. As far as we know, every real thing is represented by another real thing. Even electrons are made of quarks, which are probably made of other things we don't know yet.

                    Addition is abstract phenomena based on math, which itself is abstract, so it can only function in abstract setup.

              • By cwmoore 2025-06-221:381 reply

                I’m not sure I am intended to understand what your problem is.

                • By FredPret 2025-06-2323:29

                  Personally, I suffer from whatever it is that drives a person to think about what numbers mean.

                  The numbers themselves aren't a problem, I'm just pointing out that our cognition involves many overlapping layers of abstraction, and we're doing mathematics and every other mental activity in one or more of those layers.

                  That this seems to correlate strongly to real-world phenomena speaks well of the types of abstraction that nature has equipped us with.

              • By swayvil 2025-06-2114:47

                I wouldn't even go with particles. I'd call it a stream of sensations.

            • By verzali 2025-06-2113:45

              But not necessarily with rabbits. Can easily end up with dozens of 'em when you ony started out with two.

            • By swayvil 2025-06-2114:59

              There are a dozen leaps of abstraction occuring before you arrive at "2 apples".

              You are differentiating, classifying, etc.

            • By pixl97 2025-06-2115:201 reply

              Zero, one, infinity.

              • By datameta 2025-06-2116:37

                Infinity, aka 2 or more. I agree that those are truly three distinct classes of quantity/identity

            • By brookst 2025-06-2113:58

              Whoa

          • By ndsipa_pomu 2025-06-2115:00

            I've never seen gravity, but here I am, stuck to the ground

          • By konfusinomicon 2025-06-2114:11

            bears shit in the woods so they're out there if you look in the right place

          • By curtisblaine 2025-06-2113:22

            I guess you saw two things in the wild though.

      • By m3kw9 2025-06-2113:41

        Math defines all that we do. Why do we want more? Because of addition.

      • By swayvil 2025-06-2113:17

        Even counting and measurement are contrived abstractions. If any big ultimate truth is delivered it will probably be referring to our psychology.

    • By freed0mdox 2025-06-215:033 reply

      and it will be something so trivial and obvious, those who were looking for it will be kicking themselves for missing it

      • By seanmcdirmid 2025-06-215:494 reply

        It’s a huge refrain that shows up again every 20 years or so. Wolfram wrote a huge book with this premise, but I don’t think it’s gone anywhere even though it’s surely 25 years old by now.

        • By A_D_E_P_T 2025-06-219:031 reply

          It's arguably ~2500 years old, dating back to the Pythagoreans, who believed that "all is number" and had a very large and complex system of musical rituals.

          The modern manifestation is mostly the intellectual product of Konrad Zuse, who wrote "digital physics" in 1969.

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

          Wolfram, Tegmark, Bostrom, etc. are mostly downstream of Zuse.

          • By CRConrad 2025-06-2216:32

            > Konrad Zuse

            That...? Ah, yes, that Konrad Zuse.

        • By Kaijo 2025-06-2110:52

          Wolfram came to our evolutionary biology department to preach that book about 20 years ago. We all got our heads into cellular automata for a while, but in the end they just don't have the claimed profound explanatory power in real biological systems.

        • By burnt-resistor 2025-06-216:33

          GEB was similar in a cycle prior. It's cool to dream but the limits of accepted knowledge requires the hard work of assembling data, evidence, and reasoning.

        • By robin_reala 2025-06-2111:32

          You can read it for free at https://www.wolframscience.com/nks/ if you’re interested.

      • By amelius 2025-06-2112:161 reply

        Or someone proves that there is no pattern and they will be kicking themselves for wasting their time searching.

        • By mensetmanusman 2025-06-2112:35

          The experience gained along the journey is more valuable than the result.

      • By e1ghtSpace 2025-06-216:291 reply

        honestly this would be it, wouldn't it? https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/07fRJGiC51VEHPqYRfNaFjnEA

    • By waltbosz 2025-06-215:184 reply

      Wouldn't it be fun if someone out there already knows a simple way to determine if a number is prime without factoring, but to them it is so obvious that they didn't even consider others may be interested.

      • By kevinventullo 2025-06-216:511 reply

        As far as I know, the Lucas-Lehrer test used by GIMPS does not actually factor: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas%E2%80%93Lehmer_primali...

        • By Someone 2025-06-217:24

          That works for very few numbers. From that Wikipedia article: “In mathematics, the Lucas–Lehmer test (LLT) is a primality test for Mersenne numbers”

          That’s fine for GIMPS, which only searches for Mersenne primes, but doesn’t work in general.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primality_test#Fast_determinis... mentions several tests that do not require factorization, though.

      • By throwaway81523 2025-06-218:50

        Pseudoprime test usually works, and AKS algorithm always works, both are much faster than factoring.

      • By adgjlsfhk1 2025-06-2117:08

        Since 2002 this has been known, and it's one of the least intuitive things in modern math. (versions with probability of 1-\epsilon have existed since Miller-Rabin in 1976)

      • By vasvir 2025-06-216:041 reply

        Well I have a really elegant proof for this but I don't have enough space in the HN reply box to write it out -- but it is trivial, I am sure you will work it out.

           Fermat Reincarnation.

        • By CRConrad 2025-06-2216:35

             >   Fermat Reincarnation.
          
          Pascal, I think.

    • By briffid 2025-06-217:26

      I had a similar feeling. But I think this is indeed a glimpse to the intrinsic structure of reality itself, not just a promise of seeing reality. Like we can have a blink of turning around in Plato's cave. I think the patterns of the Mandelbrot set is a similar thing. And there are only a handful of other things that shows the very basic structure of reality. And the encouraging thing is that it seems the core of reality is not an infinite void.

    • By cyanydeez 2025-06-2223:37

      Makes me feel like math is mostly an arbitrary realm that after you've got 90% of the way in, the remaining 10% is just pointless coincidences.

HackerNews