- --- Jens Kruse Andersen <jens.k.a@...> wrote:
> Phil guessed you meant least prime factor (lpf). I also guess that, but then

I didn't spot that, and tacitly, but incorrectly, supported them.

> your percentages from 5 are wrong.

Yours are of course correct.

Phil

() ASCII ribbon campaign () Hopeless ribbon campaign

/\ against HTML mail /\ against gratuitous bloodshed

[stolen with permission from Daniel B. Cristofani]

____________________________________________________________________________________

Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 - Ahh, good catch. Yeah, my numbers were off... I'm kind of interested in what the graphs look like, because I've never encountered another series of numbers that look like the trail of a bouncing ball. I'm trying to figure out the significance of the bounces :)

If the lines change in some predictable manner, which I think they do, then couldn't you describe a function that takes X as the Xth prime number and outputs the numbers in it's line, without knowing the Xth prime number to begin with? Unless you have to know all primes preceding X.

E.G. output the graph for 7 by taking 4 as the argument?

I've found that by tweaking the graph for a prime, it intersects all primes greater than itself at the point where X is equal to the product of the two. For 7 and 13, it intersects at 91. If you didn't have to know the prime itself, then solving for prime factors would be simplified just by knowing the point of intersection.

Anyway, I appreciate all the comments, I'm beginning to see some of the difficult oddities in prime numbers.

---------------------------------

Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] - Actually, I was wondering if there was a way to predict the lines without knowing the primes in question... an approximation, at the very least.

I was thinking that the PNT could provide 2 values which you could use to output 2 lines (the % of ∞), then you could potentially predict a high and low limit range for both factors of the product of 2 primes, P. By choosing the smallest range, you'd be able to optimize factorization of large numbers. Depending on the (P) in question, it might speed things up considerably. Knowledge of the ranges would also, I believe, allow further optimizations based on other number theory concepts, although I don't know of any specifically...

I'm working with Python, currently... is there a specific programming language that is designed for math, or a package thats not as expensive as Mathematica? Pythons great for simple things, but not as optimized as I'd like it to be, and C is a pain in the butt for me.

Danny Fleming <bsmath2000@...> wrote: If I am understanding correctly, all you have to do is take each prime and do the following:

3-9-15-... (3+2*3n), 5-15-25-... (5+2*5n), the general formula is p+2*pn. The even numbers

are all factors of the only even prime 2 (2-4-6-8-...).

Sincerely yours,

Danny Karl Fleming

Alec Smart <pvp4tw@...> wrote:

Ahh, good catch. Yeah, my numbers were off... I'm kind of interested in what the graphs look like, because I've never encountered another series of numbers that look like the trail of a bouncing ball. I'm trying to figure out the significance of the bounces :)

If the lines change in some predictable manner, which I think they do, then couldn't you describe a function that takes X as the Xth prime number and outputs the numbers in it's line, without knowing the Xth prime number to begin with? Unless you have to know all primes preceding X.

E.G. output the graph for 7 by taking 4 as the argument?

I've found that by tweaking the graph for a prime, it intersects all primes greater than itself at the point where X is equal to the product of the two. For 7 and 13, it intersects at 91. If you didn't have to know the prime itself, then solving for prime factors would be simplified just by knowing the point of intersection.

Anyway, I appreciate all the comments, I'm beginning to see some of the difficult oddities in prime numbers.

---------------------------------

Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

---------------------------------

Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast

with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.

---------------------------------

Got a little couch potato?

Check out fun summer activities for kids.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] - Alec Smart wrote:
> I'm working with Python, currently... is there a specific programming

You'll probably note, if you follow the discussions in this group,

> language that is designed for math, or a package thats not as

> expensive as Mathematica? Pythons great for simple things, but not as

> optimized as I'd like it to be, and C is a pain in the butt for me.

that a large number of participants use the free PARI/GP package for

number theory calculations. Their speed and simplicity is often very

impressive. GP is a unique programming language that provides an

interface to the PARI C library of functions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARI/GP

It is usually compiled with the very fast GMP multi-precision library

which makes most of its calculations with big numbers quite competitive

with the fastest mathematical packages out there. It has a wide variety

of algorithms already implemented efficiently, and should perform as

well or better as something that most programmers could implement in

about any language.

It's not designed to be as much of a general-purpose language as

Python, (Turing-completeness aside,) and you may find some things (e.g.

processing text) much more difficult to do in GP.

As an interesting data point, you might note that in the Project

Euler programming competition, there are a small number of users who

claim to use PARI/GP as their language of choice for solving the puzzle,

but their average number of puzzles solved is very high:

http://projecteuler.net/index.php?section=statistics

--

Alan Eliasen | "Furious activity is no substitute

eliasen@... | for understanding."

http://futureboy.us/ | --H.H. Williams