Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #382457 > unrolled thread

Re: Prime/Twin Prime Generator

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  Re: Prime/Twin Prime Generator ELI SOLOMON <mathdiscoverer@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 18:10 -0400
    Re: Prime/Twin Prime Generator Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@aol.com> - 2017-08-24 04:00 -0700
      Re: Prime/Twin Prime Generator Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@aol.com> - 2017-08-24 04:06 -0700

#382457 — Re: Prime/Twin Prime Generator

Thank you for your input.

Methinks I am being skewered for the wrong reasons.

All I need answered is will this method find twin primes from a list of PRIME numbers.

I never claimed it was the best method or the fastest method. 

What I would like to establish is whether it is a new method (however 'trivial') of identifying twin primes.

If this method has been proposed before, I would appreciate a link to the site.

I would also appreciate if a reader would take the trouble to apply this method to another means (using a list of known Primes) besides Excel to try and find out if the method fails.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#382477

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:30:12 PM UTC-4, ELI SOLOMON wrote:
> Thank you for your input.
> 
> Methinks I am being skewered for the wrong reasons.

You came into this forum with no background, having done no prior
reading on the subject, not having studied the subject,  and announced
a new method for finding twin primes.  Finding twin primes is a complicated
subject that requires a lot of background in number theory, in computer
algorithms, and in efficient implementation of algorithms.  You have NONE
of that.

What you did is like a high school kid walking into a medical convention
and announcing a "new method" for treating cancer.

Have you looked at the reference that I provided?  <of course not!>

> 
> All I need answered is will this method find twin primes from a list of PRIME numbers.

It does not, as I have shown.  What makes you a moron is that your keep 
arguing about it, claiming that it does, when proven otherwise.

You keep saying (through all of your posts) "list of primes". You then
cheat again in response to one of my posts, criticizing my inputs
as "not being sorted",  when NOWHERE do you state that the list must be
sorted.

Furthermore, your method requires that someone else finds the primes for
you.  Can you say "cheating"?  It requires that they be sorted. 

You do not have a "new method" for finding twin primes despite your 
claims to the contrary, and that is why you are being excoriated.



> 
> What I would like to establish is whether it is a new method (however 'trivial') of identifying twin primes.

It is not.  You won't find it in the literature because it is
so totally trivial that no one except a crank would ever bother to 
write it down.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382479

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 7:01:00 AM UTC-4, Pubkeybreaker wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:30:12 PM UTC-4, ELI SOLOMON wrote:
> > Thank you for your input.
> > 
> > Methinks I am being skewered for the wrong reasons.
> 
> You came into this forum with no background, having done no prior
> reading on the subject, not having studied the subject,  and announced
> a new method for finding twin primes.  Finding twin primes is a complicated
> subject that requires a lot of background in number theory, in computer
> algorithms, and in efficient implementation of algorithms.  You have NONE
> of that.
> 
> What you did is like a high school kid walking into a medical convention
> and announcing a "new method" for treating cancer.
> 
> Have you looked at the reference that I provided?  <of course not!>
> 
> > 
> > All I need answered is will this method find twin primes from a list of PRIME numbers.
> 
> It does not, as I have shown.  What makes you a moron is that your keep 
> arguing about it, claiming that it does, when proven otherwise.
> 
> You keep saying (through all of your posts) "list of primes". You then
> cheat again in response to one of my posts, criticizing my inputs
> as "not being sorted",  when NOWHERE do you state that the list must be
> sorted.
> 
> Furthermore, your method requires that someone else finds the primes for
> you.  Can you say "cheating"?  It requires that they be sorted. 
> 
> You do not have a "new method" for finding twin primes despite your 
> claims to the contrary, and that is why you are being excoriated.
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > What I would like to establish is whether it is a new method (however 'trivial') of identifying twin primes.
> 
> It is not.  You won't find it in the literature because it is
> so totally trivial that no one except a crank would ever bother to 
> write it down.

Note further:  If you had come here with an announcement that you had
a new method for finding pairs of numbers that differ by two from within
a given input list, the overwhelming response by everyone would have
been "so what? who gives a sh*t?, It is trivial"

By surrounding your "method" with a false claim about TWIN PRIMES,
you add a lot of HYPE and bluster in order to give the appearance that
you have something important.

I call what you did sheer arrogance.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web