Re: [PrimeNumbers] Kaveh's question
Maybe Kaveh could use a Monte Carlo-type test - i.e. pick a fixed number of
randomly chosen k's to test and look
whether the respective difference exists. This can be done in O( min(m,n) *
[assuming you can check in O(1) whether a given number belongs to a set].
Furthermore if there are at least two solutions to a given k, return false.
Another simple tests that may speed up the process is to check first whether
min_element(A) < max_element(B)
If this holds return false, since one can construct a negative number thus
missing at least one number from [0,mn-1].
I have constructed some covering sets - there aren't that many (if you bound
the members of the set to be in [0,mn-1]!).
So unless explicitly constructed it is very unlikely that two sets have the
[exponentially small in the number of iterations - if you choose each set
member uniformly at random].
I am new to this group, and I have been doing some
work on prime numbers that I feel I should share with
others interested in prime numbers.
I have attached a document that supports my claim,
please comment on my paper after reading it.
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>There are approxiametly 29 % prime numbers in the positive integers rangeActually there are _exactly_ 0% prime numbers in the naturals...
There are about x/log(x) prime numbers less than x - see:
Now the ratio primes/naturals = (x/log(x)) / x = 1/log(x) which converges to
0 as x approaches infinity.