21169Re: Set of prime numbers
- Dec 1, 2009--- In email@example.com, "djbroadhurst" <d.broadhurst@...> wrote:
>I had similar ideas as Phil on this ...
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org,
> "maximilian_hasler" <maximilian.hasler@> wrote:
> > published by Eratosthenes some 2200 years ago,
> > and was certainly known some 1000
> > (maybe 25 000) years earlier.
> I'm intrigued by the "certainly";
> I would have said "probably" for 1k BCE.
> Do you have a source for this reasonable supposition?
> I'm rather skeptical about the "maybe";It seems that the first estimation of about 9k BC has been revised to ~ 25k (Wikipedia says 20k, elsewhere I found 25k)
> how can we know anything about maths circa 25k BCE ?
> As far as I know, the earliest proto-mathematical bone
> artefacts that we have (found in Ishango) originate
> after 10k BCE. How do you get back to 25k BCE?
but this is still 10k less than the Lebombo bone, -- although both (esp. the latter) may be more of a calendar than a table of primes... (even if they have "29" in base 1 written on it...)
But if someone writes (or carves) a preprint about the number of days of a lunar cycle, then it should take less than 10 000 yrs to him
(or her) to publish a paper (or bone) about composite numbers
(i.e.: products, as the O.P. observed) and their complement...
(or at least "know" about it, which was all I "claimed"...)
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>