Talk:Sexy primes: Difference between revisions

:: My first point raised is that &nbsp; '''97''' &nbsp; is a sexy prime &nbsp; (with a limit of '''100'''). &nbsp; Most people's attention was directed to the query about whether that &nbsp; '''97''' &nbsp; should/shouldn't be listed as a sexy prime <u>pair</u>. &nbsp; My first query was that if the (a) limit was &nbsp; '''100''', &nbsp; programs could easily be checked and verified that they worked (or not) regarding whether or not &nbsp; '''97''' &nbsp; would be listed or counted as a sexy prime &nbsp; (or failing that, whether it would be listed or counted as an unsexy prime). &nbsp; With a limit over &nbsp; '''1,000,000''', &nbsp; it would be harder to verify &nbsp; (witness that one computer program already has an incorrect count for the number of unsexy primes, but hasn't be questioned or flagged.) &nbsp; Listing the sexy primes under &nbsp; '''100''' &nbsp; would've been a simpler way. &nbsp; But, as it turns out, everybody's program's output has to be changed to handle the new limits. &nbsp; &nbsp; -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 23:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

 

::: "'''Listing the sexy primes under 100 would've been a simpler way.'''" In what way? Each relevant count is already required to be displayed. It ''was'' ambiguous about the splitting of pairs (which I clarified). I suppose there could be some confusion over whether the threshold value should be included or not, but I purposely chose a value where it didn't matter (because I wanted to test for other constraints). There is little else that is open to interpretation. If you are unable to tell that the count your entry outputs is different from all other entries, I think there are larger problems.

::: "'''everybody's program's output has to be changed to handle the new limits'''" Seriously? I'm sorry your chosen programming language is so difficult to run. Mine took less than a minute to modify, re-run and copy-paste the new output. Really, adding an additional required test at 100 probably '''also''' would have required you to update your output, so I fail to see why that is a hardship.