Talk:Prime number/Archive 3

message: I don't like the table "The First 25 Primes". Apart the number themselves, there is no really interesting and relevant information. The length of periods of inverses in base 10 has some interest but is not relevant or interesting enough for this article. Who minds how one writes the prime numbers in binary ??? That should be an "exercise left to the reader" ;-) --FvdP 20:53, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: First 25 primes

message: Should there be a link to Prime Number Shitting Bear on this page? Right now that page is essentially an orphan :) Adam Bishop 20:30, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it. Arvindn 03:59, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such Wikipedia page, must have been deleted or something since 2003. And I question the value of the external link. I was surpised to see the word "sh**" in relation to primes. Does anyone else see value in it? MathsIsFun 10:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do. -- Dominus 21:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Bear 

message: what about an article "List of prime number related articles"? I think it'd be nice to gather them all in a page so people could read all about prime numbers that wikipedia has... Kieff 02:42, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
It's not a bad idea. Th raw material should all be at List of number theory topics, if someone wants to compile such a list.  Charles Matthews 09:44, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of prime number topics]]

message: I have moved this from the article:
Pradeep Kumar, Plamen Ch. Ivanov, and H. Eugene Stanley discovered an interesting pattern in the distribution of prime numbers.
This is recent work (see http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/0303110); it might merit inclusion somewhere, but I'd like to see more background. After all, the statistical properties of the primes have been studied intensively.
Charles Matthews 09:31, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prime Numbers in Science 

message: How do prime numbers work when numbers other than 10 are used (eg base 6, base 23 etc)? Would there be different primes, more of them or less of them?
:Prime numbers are not defined in terms of a base. They are the same numbers however you write them. --Zundark 18:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What Zundark is saying is not entirely clear.  If you were in base 6, the base 10 prime numbers (2,3,5,7,11,etc.) would be converted to base 6 (2 to 2,3 to 3,5 to 5,7 to 11,11 to 15).  Interesting thought, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.253.29.7 (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zundark is right. Changing base means to change the numeral used to represent a natural number, but it does not change the value of the number. Primality is a property of the value of a number and it's irrelevant how the number is written, just like 3/2 = 1.5 is the same number and has the property of being in the middle between two integers, no matter how it is written. PrimeHunter 00:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the divisibility tests change, though. You can't use digital roots to test divisibility by 3 or 9 in duodecimal like you can in base 10, to give just one example. Anton Mravcek 18:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primes in other base systems 

message: From prime number theorem:
One can also derive the probability that a random number n is prime: 1/ln(n).
I know this is normal shop talk (I am a number theorist myself), and I have heard such statements for years, but that still doesn't stop me from having the right to the opinion that such a statement is complete nonsense. Actually, the way it is worded now in the article is fine with me...I included "randomly-chosen" just for all the non-math, or non-number theory oriented readers. But, I still feel that statements such as the above are misleading at best and damaging at worst. I am not alone in this sentiment: while talking a number theory/complex analysis class at Univeristy of Oregon, the teacher (Dick Koch) recalled a conversation he had with a non-number theorist and when he said "the prime number theorem tells you the probability that n is prime", his colleague insisted he was talking nonsense. Of course, we all know what we "really" mean when we say something like this, but I think it's more instructive to give an example: if you choose the 1,000 natural numbers between 1,000,001 and 1,001,000, then you will expect to find roughly 1,000/ln(1,000,000) primes amongst them. This is a more helpful way of explaining it, I think. But, again this is just my opinion. Revolver 10:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what the PNT says, and I understand what the intended meaning of your original wording was. My point is that the ability to be imprecise is an achievement that only comes from lots of experience and familiarity with these areas of research. For the seasoned researcher who has been thinking about these issues for years, such imprecise thinking is very useful in many ways, in the manner you describe. I'm less optimistic about how useful it is to people trying to learn this stuff for the first time. I'm really pessimistic about how useful it is to the kind of general, mathematically naive reader who visits a popular page like this. Saying "for large n, the probability that n is prime is 1/ln(n)" means a lot, if you already have a fundamental understanding about what the PNT says, and you have experience in interpreting these kinds of statements. If you don't already understand PNT, or you have little experience thinking in this way, I wonder if such a statement is more confusing than enlightening, that's all. You said it yourself -- "they need the details in order to understand the concepts". You were talking about authors, but doesn't the same observation apply to readers? Revolver 11:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I believe that the person who doesn't understand probability in a technical sense, e.g., thinks he understands when he hears the weather report saying that the probability of rain is 50%, will accept a statement like: "the probability that a large number is prime is 1/its digits" and will have some kind of understanding which is a lot better than the student trying to understand all the steps in the actual proof of the prime number theorem, taught by someone who never gave any motivation. It reminds me of me, when I was taking analysis in university, and I never understood Fourier series, as   taught by my pure math professor. Years later, I looked at signal processing books, and the following explanation came to mind: "Fourier coefficients are the graphic equaliser on your stereo," which would have helped me a lot earlier. On the other hand, you have a point, that suppressing details can be more of a barrier for people who actually know the subject somewhat. However, these people should look at a textbook, instead of this site. ilan 11:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

text: This seems to be stretching it. Even theoretical physicists still acknowledge the distinction between convincing heuristic arguments and according-to-Hoyle proof?? Or am I missing something? Revolver 11:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Likelihood x is prime 

message: Is there a source for this claim? --MarSch 13:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polynomial log(N) deterministic 

message: I tried thinking of a way to include this information without to much contreversy.  Anyone here, a regular editor want to venture into adding this information.  http://www.magazine.carleton.ca/2004_Fall/1342.htm
--72.57.8.215 00:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I give up!  Verification of prime numbers take too long... (pun intended) 

message: EJ, you apparently removed my "spam" prime number program which was actually legitimate.  Reread the page I wrote with the program on it - it is legitimate.  You can go ahead and download it for yourself.  Do tell, what qualifies it as spam that caused you to remove it so I can correct it?  I rewrote the link title so it doesn't look as spammy as it was before to eliminate confusion.
STufaro 02:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did check the page before removing the link. Just in case you didn't notice, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the "External links" section is supposed to give pointers to on-line resources with useful additional information on the subject, which are not already covered in the article. Specifically, it is not a repository of links to every trivial implementation of trial division which someone posts on Web. -- EJ 03:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Therefore you should remove all prime number calculators because they are trivial implementations of trial division.  As far as I have checked there is no other executable prime number calculator linked to in "External links".  It is useful information.  It is relevant.  It is not covered in the "external links" section.  No reason to remove. STufaro 03:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that there may be other links in the section without merit is not an excuse to add yet another one. And no, it is neither useful nor information. It is already covered in the section "finding prime numbers" and in the article on primality testing. -- EJ 03:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I ask, what is the harm?  I'm not making money off of it in any way by posting it in wikipedia, I'm not hurting anyone - I'm providing a resource.  This program generates a text file with prime numbers.  That's all it does.  It's relevant and it's useful.  What's the harm in leaving it?  It is not added because I take pleasure in adding it.  I add it only to provide the resource.  By the way, try not to be so snooty-sounding in your replies.  I believe that's covered in an article entitled personality disorder.  (I don't mean that to hurt your feelings or anything.  I mean that to remind you that though you may be researching numbers all day and your IQ is ten times that of mine, that you and I are equals and you should not be disqualifying me by using snooty phrases such as  "Just in case you didn't notice, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia").  Watch how you come across, my friend. And be consistent.  Remove all the other prime number calculators too.  STufaro 03:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "spam" 

message: The external links section is way too long, so I did some cleanup. Here are the removed links, with rationale.
* C/C++ implementations of some well known methods to find primes. Search for 'prime' in www.tekpool.com
Nothing an average CS student cannot do in an hour.
* Prime curios at the prime pages
Duplication.
* Online Prime Number calculator
One online calculator is enough, and the WIMS one is more powerful.
* The "PRIMES is in P" FAQ
Is more relevant to AKS primality test, I'll move it there.
* List of largest known probable primes
May be relevant to probable prime, where at least the reader knows what it is about. In fact, the link is already there.
* The Prime Number Shitting Bear
A funny picture of bear, but it does not appear to do anything useful. If there is some deep connection of bears to primes which would explain the joke, then I can't see it.
* Prime Factorization Worksheet generates new questions every time the page is loaded
Nothing noteworthy.
* Prime Spiral pattern (Wolfram)
One link on the prime spiral is enough.
* 12 digit primes Known 12-digit prime factors of Googolplex - 1
There are 30 billion or so 12-digit primes, and being a divisor of Googolplex - 1 is a pretty random property.
* PHP Prime Number Calculator PHP Prime Number Calculator script. Goes until PHP overloads:)
Only God knows why it was there hidden in an HTML comment.
I will not remove the last link again (see above), as I didn't count whether or not it already was a third revert, but it clearly isn't noteworthy. 
Other dubious links which I didn't yet remove:
* The Music of Primes
A lot of fancy graphics, but if there is some informative content, it is well hidden.
* Factorizer Windows software to find prime numbers and pairs of prime numbers less than 2,147,483,646.
Commercial software.
-- EJ 04:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do apologize for the hostility, EJ.  I was really steamed last night over a few issues at home, and I don't mean to insult you or your intelligence.  Was having a mad-at-the-world moment.  I hope you understand, and many thanks for leaving my link (I just made the program slightly faster).  The reason I want to keep it up there, simply, is because I know two things: One, my 7th grade math teacher had a gigantic list of prime numbers on the board, and two, calculating them is a lot faster than downloading them for some people.  Once again, apologies.  Thanks very much for leaving it.  I'm in the process of making the page slightly more informational now :D. STufaro 23:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of links