Anonymous user
Talk:Successive prime differences: Difference between revisions
m
→Task background: added whitespace and highlighting.
m (→Task background: added a comment about twin prime task.) |
m (→Task background: added whitespace and highlighting.) |
||
Line 23:
:It is very well studied, but you must state it slightly differently. Let P2 be the infinite sequence of successive primes (p2_a,P2_b) such that P2_b-P2_a=2. and P4 be the similar infinite sequence (P4_a,P4_b) such that P4_b-P4_a = 4. The your generalization to P2P4 as 3 successive primes with Pa,Pb,Pc with Pb-Pa=2 and Pc-Pb=4 is a search through P2 and P4 to find P2_b=P4_a. An interesting study would be to compute over a large range the length of P2 and P4 and thus predict the length of P2P4. For a given range should the length of P2P4 be the same as P4P2?--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 13:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
:: I was going to add a twin prime task (and cousin prime task, a difference of four), but was somewhat preempted with addition of the ''sexy prime'' task (a difference of six), so I dithered a bit. There are other named difference primes such as ''devil'' (also called ''beast''), ''centennial'', and ''millennial'' primes. However, having a Rosetta Code task just for twin primes would make the code a lot cleaner and simpler, not to mention faster. This would've made the task solutions more easier to compare (and I think more useful for people who wanted a clean and robust code for just concerning the generation of twin primes). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 21:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
| |||