Clarification: Test VS Generator

[ET_]

Originally Posted by synergy

It is just a different way of looking at it, the sieve of Aristothenes works the same way, if it isn't crossed out it is output as a prime, if it is crossed out it is not output and is a composite - my method just crosses them out right from the start.
Consider how many composites you have looked at before finding a large prime. If you could eliminate that stage, is there really any way you could say that it wouldn't be more efficient at finding primes, in terms of hours?

If you are working on a sieve, then maybe you'll find useful reading about sieve algorithms: apart from Erarthostene's, there are other much more efficient methods like quadratic sieve or nfs. These methods work alot faster, and you'll find their implementation useful to compare your method.

Try page 389-391, 402-403, 412 and 416 of Knuth's The art of computer programming for efficiency of sieves.

Luigi

[synergy]

Thanks, Luigi, I'll check it out. Sorry it took me so long to respond, I was on fall break.
Aaron

[ET_]

Originally Posted by synergy

Thanks, Luigi, I'll check it out. Sorry it took me so long to respond, I was on fall break.
Aaron

I forgot to tell you... the information is on Volume 2 of TAOCP.

Luigi