“Mathematicians have tried in vain to this day to discover some order in the sequence of prime numbers, and we have reason to believe that it is a mystery into which the human mind will never penetrate.”

As quoted in Calculus Gems (1992) by G. Simmons

Adopted from Wikiquote. Last update Nov. 25, 2024. History

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Do you have more details about the quote "Mathematicians have tried in vain to this day to discover some order in the sequence of prime numbers, and we have reas…" by Leonhard Euler?
Leonhard Euler photo
Leonhard Euler 11
Swiss mathematician 1707–1783

Related quotes

Michel De Montaigne photo

“Some impose upon the world that they believe that which they do not; others, more in number, make themselves believe that they believe, not being able to penetrate into what it is to believe.”

Book II, Ch. 12. Apology for Raimond Sebond
Essais (1595), Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. (1919)

Fidel Castro photo

“The death of a fighter is not a reason to mourn, if we believe, as we have always believed, as our people have believed and as revolutionaries of every era have believed, that no true man, no true revolutionary dies in vain.”

Fidel Castro (1926–2016) former First Secretary of the Communist Party and President of Cuba

Speech (12 January 1968) http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/discursos/1968/esp/f120168e.html

Prevale photo

“The human mind is a world apart. Complex, mysterious and never fully known. For this reason, it will always intrigue the soul, body and another mind.”

Prevale (1983) Italian DJ and producer

Original: La mente umana è un mondo a parte. Complesso, misterioso e mai conosciuto completamente. Per questo motivo, intrigherà sempre l'anima, il corpo ed un'altra mente.
Source: prevale.net

Herbert Spencer photo

“We have a priori reasons for believing that in every sentence there is some one order of words more effective than any other”

Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) English philosopher, biologist, sociologist, and prominent classical liberal political theorist

Pt. I, sec. 3, "The Principle of Economy Applied to Sentences"
The Philosophy of Style (1852)
Context: We have a priori reasons for believing that in every sentence there is some one order of words more effective than any other; and that this order is the one which presents the elements of the proposition in the succession in which they may be most readily put together.

Gottfried Leibniz photo

“We never have a full demonstration, although there is always an underlying reason for the truth, even if it is only perfectly understood by God, who alone penetrated the infinite series in one stroke of the mind.”

Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716) German mathematician and philosopher

The Shorter Leibniz Texts (2006) http://books.google.com/books?id=oFoCY3xJ8nkC&dq edited by Lloyd H. Strickland, p. 111

René Descartes photo

“The entire method consists in the order and arrangement of the things to which the mind’s eye must turn so that we can discover some truth.”

Rules for the Direction of the Mind: X.379
As quoted in [Clarke, Desmond M., 2006, Descartes : a Biography, Cambridge Press, 67, ISBN 978-0-521-82301-2]

John Nash photo

“You don't have to be a mathematician to have a feel for numbers.”

John Nash (1928–2015) American mathematician and Nobel Prize laureate

Statement of 2006, partly cited in Stop Making Sense: Music from the Perspective of the Real (2015) by Scott Wilson, p. 117
2000s
Context: You don't have to be a mathematician to have a feel for numbers. A movie, by the way, was made — sort of a small-scale offbeat movie — called Pi recently. I think it starts off with a big string of digits running across the screen, and then there are people who get concerned with various things, and in the end this Bible code idea comes up. And that ties in with numbers, so the relation to numbers is not necessarily scientific, and even when I was mentally disturbed, I had a lot of interest in numbers.

G. K. Chesterton photo

“Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious.”

G. K. Chesterton (1874–1936) English mystery novelist and Christian apologist

Source: The Thing (1929), Ch. IV : The Drift From Domesticity
Context: In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, or that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

Jack Vance photo

Related topics