Re: Counting primes, and lying mathematicians
From: Virgil (ITSnetNOTcom#virgil_at_COMCAST.com)
Date: 03/04/05
- Next message: Tim Peters: "Re: Simple answer, surrogate factoring"
- Previous message: karllarc: "Re: Counting primes, and lying mathematicians"
- In reply to: karllarc: "Re: Counting primes, and lying mathematicians"
- Next in thread: Larry Lard: "Re: Counting primes, and lying mathematicians"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 21:44:10 -0700
In article <1109910785.608023.211450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"karllarc" <karllarc@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "My prime counting function can find primes numbers on its own as it
> recurses, which has NEVER been seen before in mathematics with a "prime
> counting function".
>
> Every other recursive method for counting primes known has needed to be
> to given a list of primes.
>
> That is just a fact". James Harris
>
> What about trial by division. It doesn't use a list of primes. So much
> for your "facts".
And the ur-method, the Sieve of Eratosthenes, only starts with integers,
unless James wishes to insist that the list of all integers is actually
a list of primes.
- Next message: Tim Peters: "Re: Simple answer, surrogate factoring"
- Previous message: karllarc: "Re: Counting primes, and lying mathematicians"
- In reply to: karllarc: "Re: Counting primes, and lying mathematicians"
- Next in thread: Larry Lard: "Re: Counting primes, and lying mathematicians"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
