you all like starting arguments that never end and Pi I asked for your suggestions 2 of your posts back have a list ready yet ?

[QUOTE=axn] What I mean is, the expected number of candidates to search for a prime is dependent only on the average candidate size and the sieve depth. For a factor-rich base, you would naturally start with less candidates (before sieving) as compared to a factor-deficient base.[/QUOTE]

Less candidates? :orly owl: Why is it that factor-rich bases can barely eliminate 9 in 10 in the sieving process, while prime or factor-deficient bases can easily eliminate 14 in 15 or 19 in 20?

[QUOTE=axn]The numbers such as "1 in 7 candidates left" are irrelevant -- what is relevant is the aposteriori probability, after sieving, of a candidate yielding prime.[/QUOTE]

Irrelevant? They're irrelevant? Having fewer candidates = Better odds of finding a prime among the *remaining* candidates, as the obvious composites have all been eliminated.

[QUOTE=3.14159;224012]Less candidates? :orly owl: Why is it that factor-rich bases can barely eliminate 9 in 10 in the sieving process, while prime or factor-deficient bases can easily eliminate 14 in 15 or 19 in 20?



Irrelevant? They're irrelevant? Having fewer candidates = Better odds of finding a prime among the *remaining* candidates, as the obvious composites have all been eliminated.[/QUOTE]

yet you claim my idea is crap and it has some of that in it as well who falls now.

[QUOTE=3.14159;224012]Why is it that factor-rich bases can barely eliminate 9 in 10 in the sieving process, while prime or factor-deficient bases can easily eliminate 14 in 15 or 19 in 20?[/QUOTE]

You should be able to answer this. (Also, the difference between the two should be larger, unless you're thinking of a less-rich version of "factor-rich" than I'm thinking of.)

[QUOTE=3.14159;224012]Having fewer candidates = Better odds of finding a prime among the *remaining* candidates, as the obvious composites have all been eliminated.[/QUOTE]

False.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse]False.
[/QUOTE]

If you were assuming I was talking about changing the amount of primes found: Strawman. Never said anything about the amount of primes to be found. Point invalidated.

Else, disregard the above.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse]I wasn't.
[/QUOTE]

.. How would it be equally difficult to find a prime when there are less candidates to test? (Please, present us with your brilliant explanation.)

[QUOTE=3.14159;224018].. How would it be equally difficult to find a prime when there are less candidates to test? (Please, present us with your brilliant explanation.)[/QUOTE]

Because there're less primes, too!

Read about Nash weight.

[QUOTE=kar_bon]Because there're less primes, too!
[/QUOTE]

In a fixed k-range, there are less primes after sieving? So, tell me, how does sieving accidentally kick out primes? :lol: X 2

[QUOTE=3.14159;224022]In a fixed k-range, there are less primes after sieving? So, tell me, how does sieving accidentally kick out primes?[/QUOTE]

For someone who throws out strawmen arguments so often, I'd think you would be more careful about saying that sort of thing.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse]For someone who throws out strawmen arguments so often, I'd think you would be more careful about saying that sort of thing.
[/QUOTE]

Strawmen? What strawmen did I make? I distorted nothing! He stated that in plain text!

[QUOTE=3.14159;224022]In a fixed k-range, there are less primes after sieving? So, tell me, how does sieving accidentally kick out primes? :lol: X 2[/QUOTE]

Less primes to find among the remaining candidates!

Example: k*2^n-1

n-range: 600000-1000000
sieved to p=26*10^12
k=337: 2618 candidates left
k=315: 32276 candidates left

Primes in that range found:
k=337: none
k=315: 3

BTW: k=337 got no prime for 172000<n<2600000!