Anonymous user
Talk:Cousin primes: Difference between revisions
m
added whitespace.
m (→task needs clarification: added some wording.) |
m (added whitespace.) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 22:
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. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 19:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
::Also made it "both less", matching the [[Twin_primes]] task. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 20:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
| |||