Re: Sieve distinction, prime counting

mm_at_nowhere.net
Date: 03/04/05 

Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 11:43:44 +0100

jstevh@msn.com wrote:

> mm@nowhere.net wrote:
> <deleted>
>
>>Bull***. For instance, in "Prime Numbers and Computer Methods
>>for Factorization", page 14, Hans Riesel explicitely wrote :
>>
>> Using formula (1.9) repeatedly, we can break down any Phi(x,a)
>> to the computation of Phi(x,1) which is the number of odd
>> integers <= x. However, because the recursion has to be used
>> many times, the evaluation is cumbersome. It is far better
>> to find a way to compute Phi(x,k) for some reasonably large
>> value k, and then break down the desired value Phi(x,a) just
>> to Phi(x,k) and no further.
>>
>>That's not because the formulas don't work but because IT
>>IS FAR BETTER to do so.
>>
>>
>
> They don't work. You need to read between the lines.

One of these days, you should try to simply read the lines.

 
> I suggest you try it, and just to make it easy, I suggest you
> demonstrate with the calulation of pi(10).

Ok, I understand. I thought you were claiming that Legendre
formula is not "fully recursive", but, in fact, what you claim
here is "since my formula doesn't use a table of primes whereas
others do, it is necessarily a revolutionary discovery".

But where is the problem? You take the Legendre formula and
each time you need to use a prime, rather than using a prime
table, you call a function that computes it from scratch (it
would just be completely moronic but it is not impossible).
Or you can also make use of a characteristic function, X(y)
(X(y)=1 if and only if y is prime and X(y)=0 otherwise), but
you know it, that's what you did. What you did't realize is
that it is practically impossible to do worse than what you
did. This is exactly like cutting your legs before running
a marathon and claiming that this is a big advantage because,
this way, you are sure you won't get cramps.

I don't understand why you always try to point out differences
between your "major discoveries" and what already exists since,
obviously, these differences only indicate that what you have
is less good. You really are very, very moronic, you know?

> What you will have to do is not tell the method that 2 and 3 are prime.

Because when you compute pi(2)-pi(1) or pi(3)-pi(2), you don't
tell "your" method that 2 and 3 are prime?

 
> Show how much you know.

But I never claimed that I knew anything. What I claim is that,
you, you do know nothing. That's not quite the same.
I don't claim that I am understanding Wiles proof, I claim that,
you, you are a megalomaniac moron when you attack Wiles proof
(because it is obvious that you are not able to understand a
single comma of this proof).

> I like asking for people to actually put up math with such a simple
> test, especially when it's an obnoxious poster.

>

> If I'm wrong, then I'm just wrong, and I'll stand corrected.

It's new enough, isn't it, mister "proper unit"?

> But you need to *show* the math this time, and not think you can just
> get by with quoting from a book.

I agree, this is totally unfair : you cannot quote a book.

mm

Quantcast