Talk:Ormiston pairs
Should Ormiston pairs be disjoint?
Does anyone know the answer to this?
I'd previously assumed they should be - though it makes no difference if they are or not when considering numbers up to 10 million.
However, it does make a difference for numbers up to 100 million - there are 34,901 pairs in total of which 34,876 are disjoint. --PureFox (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see anything in the definition used here which requires them to be disjoint. --Rdm (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Suggesting a task Ormiston triplets? Perhaps a new OEIS sequence? In this age of artificial intelligence perhaps rc requires a bot which checks OEIS daily and autonomously generates an rc task for each new sequence. I read somewhere that the number of sequences on OEIS increases by about 40 a day, so that should keep everyone busy.--Nigel Galloway (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Good idea re Ormiston triples. I've just posted a new task for that.
- Although there are a lot of existing OEIS sequences with new ones being added every day, most of them are too trivial or otherwise unsuitable to be worth making an RC task for them. Thundergnat seems to have a knack of finding worthwhile ones to keep the 'usual suspects' happy and I have a look myself from time to time. --PureFox (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't bother adding Ormiston triples to the Ormiston pairs task because it's pretty much exactly the same task, just a whole lot more boring grinding through prime numbers with one extra constraint. Triples doesn't really add anything that the pairs task doesn't have. I'd much rather add tasks that aren't just exercises in processing power. An OEIS harvesting bot doesn't seem very practical, but if you want to, go for it. Seems like it would still need a lot of manual curation though. --Thundergnat (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)