Talk:Strange unique prime triplets: Difference between revisions
m (→added a stretch goal: added some verbiage.) |
(→added a stretch goal: Added a comment.) |
||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
I tried '''10,000,''' but that seemed to be pushing it a bit too far (but still doable). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 13:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC) |
I tried '''10,000,''' but that seemed to be pushing it a bit too far (but still doable). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 13:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC) |
||
:Although I don't intend to post it on the main page as it's not part of the task, I coded a second Go version which uses a sieve rather than individual prime calculations and found that there were 74,588,542 unique prime triples under '''10,000''' which sum to a prime. This runs in about 4.3 seconds on my machine (core i7). --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 15:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:21, 10 March 2021
uniqueness of the prime numbers being added
How about: 3 + 3 + 11
Nothing was mentioned about n, m, and p being unique or not. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Added the uniqueness. I would like to rename it "strange unique prime triplets" or some such? --Paddy3118 (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- The renaming sounds good to me. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
other definitions of strange primes
Note that there are other definitions of strange primes.
One possibility is to rename this Rosetta Code task to: three primes summing to a prime or
three unique primes summing to a prime, or somesuch.
Mathoverflow has different definition at:
strange and non strange prime numbers are there infinitely many of them. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
added a stretch goal
I added a stretch goal of finding all the three unique primes summing to a prime, with the primes < 1,000.
I tried 10,000, but that seemed to be pushing it a bit too far (but still doable). -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Although I don't intend to post it on the main page as it's not part of the task, I coded a second Go version which uses a sieve rather than individual prime calculations and found that there were 74,588,542 unique prime triples under 10,000 which sum to a prime. This runs in about 4.3 seconds on my machine (core i7). --PureFox (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)