Re: Sieve distinction, prime counting
From: Gib Bogle (bogle_at_ihug.too.much.spam.co.nz)
Date: 03/03/05
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Dave Seaman: "Re: Antiderivative of e^(x^2)?"
- In reply to: mm_at_nowhere.net: "Re: Sieve distinction, prime counting"
- Next in thread: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Sieve distinction, prime counting"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 08:39:36 +1300
mm@nowhere.net wrote:
> jstevh@msn.com wrote:
>
>> A key point that needs to be understood to get at why my prime counting
>> discovery is important is how it's a big deal that it is fully
>> recursive without needing to be given primes.
>
>
>
> And that's a big difference with the original Legendre formula?
> That's clear, either you are a liar or you understand nothing,
> maybe both.
Probably both.
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Dave Seaman: "Re: Antiderivative of e^(x^2)?"
- In reply to: mm_at_nowhere.net: "Re: Sieve distinction, prime counting"
- Next in thread: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Sieve distinction, prime counting"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
