Talk:Cousin primes: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Revision as of 18:20, 18 March 2021

similar to twin primes

I know that this task is similar to Twin primes one, but differ from that. (CalmoSoft)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_prime

task needs clarification

This task defined cousin primes, but 7 and 11 are both cousin primes, and there are two cousin primes in this sentence.

One cousin pair is shown, but two cousin primes.

Similarly, the list of cousin primes shown in the first line of the output section of the Ring computer language shows:

     (3, 7)     (7, 11)     (13, 17)     (19, 23)    (37, 41)

(I added extra blanks) which shows ten cousin prime numbers, but one cousin prime (7) is shown duplicated. So far, two computer programming language outputs are showing cousin prime pairs, and this task is asking for cousin primes, not the number of cousin prime pairs. I have no qualms of showing the cousin primes in pairs, but it should be very clear what we are counting (regardless of how they are shown, paired or not paired).

I think this task, in addition to showing the cousin primes in whatever manner is chosen or specified, also include as a summary, the number of (unique) cousin primes found, whether or not a count of cousin prime pairs is also shown, and style choices can be problematic at Rosetta Code.

Maybe this task should also specify if the cousin primes are to be listed in pairs (or not), dealer's choice? I prefer a simple list of cousin primes (not shown in pairs), as it looks simpler and less cluttered, but it's only an opinion.

This also raises the question (again), if we were to (for instance) list all cousin primes less than 100, should 97 be shown? --- Of course it should, because it is a cousin prime; but its (higher paired) cousin prime is out of range. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 One cousin &nbsp; ''pair'' &nbsp; is shown, &nbsp; but &nbsp; '''two''' &nbsp; cousin primes.
-Similarly, the list of cousin primes shown in the first line of the output section of
+Similarly, the list of cousin primes shown in the <u>first</u> line of the output section of
 the &nbsp; '''Ring''' &nbsp; computer language shows:
-    (3, 7)    (7, 11)    (13, 17)    (19, 23)    (37, 41)
+      (3, 7)     (7, 11)     (13, 17)     (19, 23)    (37, 41)
-(I added extra blanks) &nbsp; &nbsp;  which shows &nbsp; '''ten''' &nbsp; cousin prime numbers, &nbsp; but one cousin prime &nbsp; ('''7''') &nbsp; is shown
+(I added extra blanks) &nbsp; &nbsp;  which shows &nbsp; '''ten''' &nbsp; cousin prime numbers, &nbsp; but one cousin prime &nbsp; ('''7''') &nbsp; is shown duplicated.  &nbsp; So far, two computer programming language outputs are showing &nbsp; ''cousin prime pairs'', &nbsp; and this task is asking for &nbsp; ''cousin primes'', &nbsp; not the number of &nbsp; ''cousin prime pairs''. &nbsp; I have no qualms of showing the cousin primes in pairs, &nbsp; but it should be very clear &nbsp; ''what'' &nbsp; we are counting &nbsp; (regardless of how they are shown, &nbsp; paired or not paired).
-duplicated.  &nbsp; So far, two computer programming language outputs are showing &nbsp; ''cousin prime pairs'', &nbsp; and this task is asking for &nbsp; ''cousin primes'', &nbsp; not the number of &nbsp; ''cousin prime pairs''. &nbsp; I have no qualms of showing the cousin primes in pairs, &nbsp; but it should be very clear &nbsp; ''what'' &nbsp; we are counting &nbsp; (regardless of how they are shown, &nbsp; paired or not paired).
-I think this task, &nbsp; in addition to showing the cousin primes in whatever manner is chosen, &nbsp; also include as a summary, &nbsp; the &nbsp; ''number'' &nbsp;  of (unique) cousin primes found, &nbsp; whether or not a count of cousin prime pairs is also shown.
+I think this task, &nbsp; in addition to showing the cousin primes in whatever manner is chosen or specified, &nbsp; also include as a summary, &nbsp; the &nbsp; ''number'' &nbsp;  of (unique) cousin primes found, &nbsp; whether or not a count of cousin prime pairs is also shown, &nbsp; and style choices can be problematic at Rosetta Code.
-Maybe this task should also specify if the cousin primes are to be listed in pairs &nbsp; (or not), &nbsp; dealer's choice? &nbsp; &nbsp; I prefer a simple list of cousin primes &nbsp; (not shown in pairs, &nbsp; as it looks simpler and less cluttered, &nbsp; but it's only an opinion.
+Maybe this task should also specify if the cousin primes are to be listed in pairs &nbsp; (or not), &nbsp; dealer's choice? &nbsp; &nbsp; I prefer a simple list of cousin primes &nbsp; (not shown in pairs), &nbsp; as it looks simpler and less cluttered, &nbsp; but it's only an opinion.
-This also raises the question (again), &nbsp; if we are to (for instance) list all cousin primes less than 100, &nbsp; should &nbsp; '''97''' &nbsp; be shown? &nbsp; Of course it should, &nbsp; because it &nbsp;''is''&nbsp; a cousin prime; &nbsp; but its (higher) cousin prime is out of range. &nbsp; &nbsp; -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 18:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
+This also raises the question (again), &nbsp; '''if''' &nbsp; we were to (for instance) list all cousin primes less than 100, &nbsp; should &nbsp; '''97''' &nbsp; be shown? &nbsp; ---&nbsp;&nbsp;Of course it should, &nbsp; because it &nbsp;''is''&nbsp; a cousin prime; &nbsp; but its (higher paired) cousin prime is out of range. &nbsp; &nbsp; -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 18:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)