Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

21169Re: Set of prime numbers

Expand Messages
  • maximilian_hasler
    Dec 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "djbroadhurst" <d.broadhurst@...> wrote:
      > --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,
      > "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 had similar ideas as Phil on this ...

      > I'm rather skeptical about the "maybe";
      > 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?

      It seems that the first estimation of about 9k BC has been revised to ~ 25k (Wikipedia says 20k, elsewhere I found 25k)
      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"...)

    • Show all 10 messages in this topic