My vote is for cheesehead this time (sorry Mr. Silverman), but I strongly consider that you both should stop.

We have nothing to gain from this dispute, which eventually can degenerate and can result in one or more bans. You better try to illuminate us what the prime constellations are good for, and if we should search for such things or better use our time on something else (like shouting on forums on the web, etc. :P)

I believe they are good for something, otherwise so many intelligent people (like Mr. Silverman's ex) would not waste their time with them (no sarcasm!).

Also consider the source from which "the n00b" got his terminology.

(Props to you Matt for staying on topic, you're pretty much the only one who's managed it.)

[QUOTE=MattcAnderson;292292]Hello again,

Here is a source for prime constellations -
[URL]http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeConstellation.html[/URL]

Also, Anthony Forbes keeps a list of the largest known prime constellations.

[URL="http://anthony.d.forbes.googlepages.com/ktuplets.htm"][COLOR=#0066cc]http://anthony.d.forbes.googlepages.com/ktuplets.htm[/COLOR][/URL]

I have an algorithm and Java app to search for Prime Constellations.
Let me know if the readme.txt is easy to follow.

Cheers,
Matt[/QUOTE]

I see no discussion of [b]mathematics[/b] here.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;292323]I see no discussion of [b]mathematics[/b] here.[/QUOTE]

did you miss all the mentions of prime constellations ?

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;292323]I see no discussion of [b]mathematics[/b] here.[/QUOTE]

And what exactly do you call this?
[url]http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeConstellation.html[/url]

^^ I call that mathematics.

Shirley
 

[QUOTE=xilman;292194]You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.[/QUOTE]
You are casting pearls before swine.

David

The .zip file in post #21 implements an algorithm that I wrote. It allows a user to follow steps in the readme and find some primes.

Although you won't find the largest known prime, as with the Mersenne search, you can possibly find the largest instance of a constellation of primes.

That is to say, ignoring the first k primes, a set of k primes that are as close as possible together.

I have developed an algorithm to find prime constellations. The code is in post #21.

Prime constellations show a beautiful structure in the numberline. They are worth finding.

This project involves the search for prime constellations.

[QUOTE=MattcAnderson;292598]I have developed an algorithm to find prime constellations. The code is in post #21.

Prime constellations show a beautiful structure in the numberline. They are worth finding.

This project involves the search for prime constellations.[/QUOTE]

I still see no discussion about [b]mathematics[/b].

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;292606]I still see no discussion about [B]mathematics[/B].[/QUOTE]Your repeated statement about your failure to see a discussion of mathematics is duly noted.

The American Mathematical Society's Mathematics Subject Classification ([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_Subject_Classification[/URL]) has two entries for Recreational Mathematics: [URL]http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/msc/msc2010.html?t=&s=00A08++Recreational+mathematics&ls=s[/URL]
[URL]http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/msc/msc2010.html?t=97A20&btn=Current[/URL]

Were you not aware of this?

Wolfram MathWorld, self-proclaimed as "the web's most extensive mathematics resource", has several entries under the heading of "Recreational Mathematics" at [URL]http://mathworld.wolfram.com/topics/RecreationalMathematics.html[/URL]

I see no forum limitation that the Math subforum can address only topics that you, Mr. Silverman, deem suitable. Have you slipped into confusing this forum with one of your classrooms again?

Or are we to infer from your repeated declarations of inability to see a discussion of mathematics that you are no longer qualified to determine whether a discussion of mathematics exists?

Perhaps he means that while Matt's math is perfectly valid, he if talking about starting a new DC project, and not specifically the mathematics itself? I'll admit it's taken me a few days to teach this possible conclusion, but it's what best fits the facts. (If so, why not just say so RDS, and if not, then I agree with cheesehead.)