Thread for posting tiny primes

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

So now can you write a different function that takes a limit L, base b, an exponent e, and a k-range kmin,kmax and determines
1. The expected number of candidates remaining after sieving to L?
2. The number of primes in the range? (Use your estimatePrimes function.)

I'll try but I'm not promising anything yet lol.

well k*b^e +1 ? I can make a limit variable that's not too hard

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

I'll try but I'm not promising anything yet lol.

Of course. But you've already built a useful tool; I'm just trying to get you to make another.

[science_man_88]

well if you look at it the rough estimate of candidates in the range is #number_in _range *probability or 1/average gap.

as for the candidates left after L unless i know the upper bound I'm not so sure how to conquer it I could assume that if i can find a upper bound at this many per gap etc. I can expect this many that might be simple if I can do the math with them in reasonable time.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

as for the candidates left after L unless i know the upper bound I'm not so sure how to conquer it I could assume that if i can find a upper bound at this many per gap etc. I can expect this many that might be simple if I can do the math with them in reasonable time.

See post #593. (1 - 1/f) * 100% of candidates are sieved out, leaving (1/f) * 100% of candidates that may be prime with 'probability' f times greater than usual.

[science_man_88]

in the range yes outside the range unless I know what percentage of candidates are in each range or something I still see no clue.

[CRGreathouse]

I don't understand what you wrote or how it relates to what I wrote.

[science_man_88]

what I'm saying is

up to L is definable range
up to unknown value is quite defined in my eyes enough to help me find what percentage is left of all candidates.

[CRGreathouse]

Yep, not getting it. You use L to calculate a new lambda; you don't do anything else with it. You're not working in ranges defined by it.

[science_man_88]

then i don't know of a way to do it unless I loop forever changing lambda and never stop until I can prove no more candidates exist I have no way of doing either really.

[science_man_88]

I might get it if I followed the:

Keep
it
simple
stupid

method

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

then i don't know of a way to do it unless I loop forever changing lambda and never stop until I can prove no more candidates exist I have no way of doing either really.

I have no idea why when I asked for the expected number of remaining candidates, you thought this would require an infinite loop.