I'm working on modernizing Rosetta Code's infrastructure. Starting with communications. Please accept this time-limited open invite to RC's Slack.. --Michael Mol (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Cousin primes

From Rosetta Code

similar to twin primes[edit]

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[edit]

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   (and solves/bypasses the problem of counting cousin primes),   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)

Even though the task description was not entirely clear, I think the author's intentions are clear from his Ring solution. I've therefore taken the liberty of clarifying the task description on the main page in a way which is consistent with the existing solutions. --PureFox (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Also made it "both less", matching the Twin_primes task. --Pete Lomax (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)