--- 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"...)

Maximilian