In number theory, a formula for primes is a formula that outputs prime numbers. Such formulas for calculating primes do exist; however, they are computationally very slow, compared to a simple algorithm for prime-finding. A number of constraints are known, showing what such a "formula" can and cannot be.
A simple formula that produces all primes, albeit mostly interspersed by the prime number 2, is
for positive integer, where is the floor function, which rounds down to the nearest integer. The first few values of the function are 2, 2, 3, 2, 5, 2, 7, 2, 2, 2, 11...[1]
The formula works because by Wilson's theorem, is prime if and only if . Thus, when is prime, the first factor in the product becomes one, and the formula produces the prime number . But when is not prime, the first factor becomes zero and the formula produces the prime number 2.[2] This formula is not an efficient way to generate prime numbers because evaluating requires about multiplications and reductions modulo .
In 1964, Willans gave the formula
for the th prime number .[3] This formula reduces to [4][5]
that is, it tautologically defines as the smallest integer for which the prime-counting function is at least . This formula is also not efficient. In addition to the appearance of , it computes by adding up copies of ; for example,
The articles What is an Answer? by Herbert Wilf (1982)[6] and Formulas for Primes by Underwood Dudley (1983)[7] have further discussion about the worthlessness of such formulas.
A shorter formula based on Wilson's theorem was given by J. P. Jones in 1975, using as a function:[8]
.
Here, is the monus operator, defined as , and is defined to be .
Recurrence relations for primes
Gandhi's formula
In 1971, Gandhi proved that where , is the Möbius function and runs through all dividers of , the primorial of .[9][10][11] This formula should be seen as a recurrence relation for the prime numbers, expressing in terms of .
This expression for given by Gandhi results from an application of a modified Sieve of Eratosthenes operating on the exponents of the powers of in the sum after steps. More precisely, Gandhi showed that , where the dots represent terms with increasing exponents greater than .[11] There are analog recurrences where the process is done in a base other than .[12][13]
The notion of continued fraction can be used to define the constant (sequence A064442 in the OEIS) from which we can recover the prime number sequence using the following recurrence relationship , and it follows that .
An alternative construction was given by Fridman et al.[15]. Given the constant (sequence A249270 in the OEIS), for , define the sequencewhere is the floor function. Then for , . The initial constant given in the article is precise enough for equation (1) to generate the primes through 37, the twelfth prime.
The exact value of that generates all primes is given by the rapidly-converging series
The more digits of that we know, the more primes equation (1) will generate. For example, we can use 25 terms in the series, using the 25 primes less than 100, to calculate the following more precise approximation:
This has enough digits for equation (1) to yield again the 25 primes less than 100.
Mills' formula
The first such formula known was established by W. H.Mills(1947), who proved that there exists a real numberA such that, if
then
is a prime number for all positive integers .[16] If the Riemann hypothesis is true, then the smallest such has a value of around 1.3063778838630806904686144926... (sequence A051021 in the OEIS) and is known as Mills' constant.[17] This value gives rise to the primes , , , ... (sequence A051254 in the OEIS). Very little is known about the constant . This formula has no practical value, because there is no known way of calculating the constant without finding primes in the first place.
There is nothing special about the floor function in the formula. Tóth proved that there also exists a constant such that
In the case , the value of the constant begins with 1.24055470525201424067... The first few primes generated are:
Without assuming the Riemann hypothesis, Elsholtz developed several prime-representing functions similar to those of Mills. For example, if , then is prime for all positive integers . Similarly, if , then is prime for all positive integers .[19]
Wright's formula
A tetrationally growing prime-generating formula similar to Mills' comes from a theorem of E. M. Wright. He proved that there exists a real number α such that, if
and
for ,
then
is prime for all .[20] Wright gives the first seven decimal places of such a constant: . This value gives rise to the primes , , and . is even, and so is not prime. However, with , , , and are unchanged, while is a prime with 4932 digits.[21] This sequence of primes cannot be extended beyond without knowing more digits of . Like Mills' formula, and for the same reasons, Wright's formula cannot be used to find primes.
Plouffe's formulas
In 2018 Simon Plouffeconjectured a set of formulas for primes. Similarly to the formula of Mills, they are of the form
where is the function rounding to the nearest integer. For example, with and , this gives 113, 367, 1607, 10177, 102217... (sequence A323176 in the OEIS). Using and with a certain number between 0 and one half, Plouffe found that he could generate a sequence of 50 probable primes (with high probability of being prime). Presumably there exists an ε such that this formula will give an infinite sequence of actual prime numbers. The number of digits starts at 501 and increases by about 1% each time.[22][23]
Prime formulas and polynomial functions
It is known that no non-constant polynomial function P(n) with integer coefficients exists that evaluates to a prime number for all integers n. The proof is as follows: suppose that such a polynomial existed. Then P(1) would evaluate to a prime p, so . But for any integer k, also, so cannot also be prime (as it would be divisible by p) unless it were p itself. But the only way for all k is if the polynomial function is constant. The same reasoning shows an even stronger result: no non-constant polynomial function P(n) exists that evaluates to a prime number for almost all integers n.
is prime for the 40 integers with corresponding primes . The differences between the terms are For , it produces a square number, , which is equal to , the smallest composite number for this formula for . If divides , it divides too. Furthermore, since can be written as , if divides instead, it also divides . The phenomenon is related to the Ulam spiral, which is also implicitly quadratic, and the class number; this polynomial is related to the Heegner number. There are analogous polynomials for (the lucky numbers of Euler), corresponding to other Heegner numbers.
Given a positive integer , there may be infinitely many such that the expression is always coprime to . The integer may be negative, in which case there is a delay before primes are produced.
Similarly, other polynomials (of higher degree) produces finite sequences of prime numbers.[24] In 2010, Dress and Landreau found the following polynomial representing a record-breaking 58 primes at consecutive values:[25][26]More precisely, is prime for ranging from -42 to 15.
It is known, based on Dirichlet's theorem on arithmetic progressions, that linear polynomial functions produce infinitely many primes as long as and are relatively prime (though no such function will assume prime values for all values of ). Moreover, the Green–Tao theorem says that for any there exists a pair of a and b, with the property that is prime for any from 0 through . However, as of 2020,[update] the best known result of such type is for :
is prime for all from 0 through 26.[27] It is not even known whether there exists a univariate polynomial of degree at least 2, that assumes an infinite number of values that are prime; see Bunyakovsky conjecture.
where denotes the greatest common divisor function. The sequence of differences starts with 1, 1, 1, 5, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 11, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 23, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 47, 3, 1, 5, 3, ... (sequence A132199 in the OEIS). Rowland (2008) proved that this sequence contains only ones and prime numbers. However, it does not contain all the prime numbers, since the terms are always odd and so never equal to 2. The same paper conjectures that the sequence contains all odd primes: in fact, 587 is the smallest odd prime not appearing in the first 10,000 outcomes different from 1.[28]
This recurrence is rather inefficient. In perspective, it is trivial to write an algorithm to generate all prime numbers (from the definition), and many more efficient algorithms are known. Thus, such recurrence relations are more a matter of curiosity than of practical use.
The 14 equations can be used to produce a prime-generating polynomial inequality in 26 variables:
is a polynomial inequality in 26 variables, and the set of prime numbers is identical to the set of positive values taken on by the left-hand side as the variables range over the nonnegative integers.
A general theorem of Matiyasevich says that if a set is defined by a system of Diophantine equations, it can also be defined by a system of Diophantine equations in only 9 variables.[30] Hence, there is a prime-generating polynomial inequality as above with only 10 variables. However, its degree is large (in the order of 1045). On the other hand, there also exists such a set of equations of degree only 4, but in 58 variables.[31]
↑J. M. Gandhi, Formulae for the nth prime, Proceedings of the Washington State University Conference on Number Theory 96–107, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, 1971.
↑Plouffe (2019) As of January 2019, the number he gives in the appendix for the 50th number generated is actually the 48th.
↑Francois, Dress; Bernard, Landreau (28 February 2014). "Polynômes de degré supérieur à 2 prenant beaucoup de valeurs premières". arXiv:1402.7312 [math.NT].
Prunescu, Mihai; Sauras-Altuzarra, Lorenzo (2024), "An Arithmetic Term for the Factorial Function", Examples and Counterexamples, 5 100136, doi:10.1016/j.exco.2024.100136
Prunescu, Mihai; Shunia, Joseph M (19 December 2024), "On arithmetic terms expressing the prime-counting function and the n-th prime", arXiv:2412.14594v1 [math.NT]
Ribenboim, Paulo (1 January 1997), "Chapter 3", The little Book of Big Primes, Wydawnictwo WNT, retrieved 24 June 2025
Regimbal, Stephen (1975), "An explicit Formula for the k-th prime number", Mathematics Magazine, 48 (4), Mathematical Association of America: 230–232, doi:10.2307/2690354, JSTOR2690354
Venugopalan, A (September 1983), "Formula for primes, twinprimes, number of primes and number of twinprimes", Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences—Mathematical Sciences, 92 (1): 49–52, doi:10.1007/BF02866907 (errata)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.