Talk:Cousin primes: Difference between revisions

Similarly, the list of cousin primes shown in the <u>first</u> line of the output section of

(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 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 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.

This also raises the question (again), &nbsp; '''if''' &nbsp; we arewere 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)