Talk:Cousin primes: Difference between revisions

m
added whitespace.
(added concerns about the wording of this (draft) task.)
m (added whitespace.)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 12:
One cousin   ''pair''   is shown,   but   '''two'''   cousin primes.
 
 
Similarly, the list of cousin primes shown in the <u>first</u> line of the output section of
the &nbsp; '''Ring''' &nbsp; computer language shows:
 
(3, 7) (7, 11) (13, 17) (19, 23) (37, 41)
 
(I added extra blanks) &nbsp; &nbsp; which shows &nbsp; '''ten''' &nbsp; cousin prime numbers, &nbsp; but one cousin prime &nbsp; ('''7''') &nbsp; is shown duplicated. &nbsp; So far, two computer programming language outputs are showing &nbsp; ''cousin prime pairs'', &nbsp; and this task is asking for &nbsp; ''cousin primes'', &nbsp; not the number of &nbsp; ''cousin prime pairs''. &nbsp; I have no qualms of showing the cousin primes in pairs, &nbsp; but it should be very clear &nbsp; ''what'' &nbsp; we are counting &nbsp; (regardless of how they are shown, &nbsp; paired or not paired).
 
I think this task, &nbsp; in addition to showing the cousin primes in whatever manner is chosen or specified, &nbsp; also include as a summary, &nbsp; the &nbsp; ''number'' &nbsp; of (unique) cousin primes found, &nbsp; whether or not a count of cousin prime pairs is also shown, &nbsp; and style choices can be problematic at Rosetta Code.
 
Maybe this task should also specify if the cousin primes are to be listed in pairs &nbsp; (or not), &nbsp; dealer's choice? &nbsp; &nbsp; I prefer a simple list of cousin primes &nbsp; (not shown in pairs), &nbsp; as it looks simpler and less cluttered &nbsp; (and solves/bypasses the problem of counting cousin primes), &nbsp; but it's only an opinion.
(I added extra blanks) &nbsp; &nbsp; which shows &nbsp; '''ten''' &nbsp; cousin prime numbers, &nbsp; but one cousin prime &nbsp; ('''7''') &nbsp; is shown
duplicated. &nbsp; So far, two computer programming language outputs are showing &nbsp; ''cousin prime pairs'', &nbsp; and this task is asking for &nbsp; ''cousin primes'', &nbsp; not the number of &nbsp; ''cousin prime pairs''. &nbsp; I have no qualms of showing the cousin primes in pairs, &nbsp; but it should be very clear &nbsp; ''what'' &nbsp; we are counting &nbsp; (regardless of how they are shown, &nbsp; paired or not paired).
 
IThis thinkalso thisraises taskthe question (again), &nbsp; in'''if''' &nbsp; we additionwere to showing(for theinstance) list all cousin primes inless whateverthan manner100, is&nbsp; chosen,should &nbsp; also'''97''' include&nbsp; asbe ashown? summary,&nbsp; ---&nbsp;&nbsp;Of thecourse it should, &nbsp; because it &nbsp;''numberis''&nbsp; a cousin prime; &nbsp; but ofits (uniquehigher paired) cousin primesprime found,is out of range. &nbsp; whether&nbsp; or-- not[[User:Gerard aSchildberger|Gerard countSchildberger]] of([[User cousintalk:Gerard primeSchildberger|talk]]) pairs18:13, is18 alsoMarch shown.2021 (UTC)
 
:Even though the task description was not entirely clear, I think the author's intentions are clear from his Ring solution. I've therefore taken the liberty of clarifying the task description on the main page in a way which is consistent with the existing solutions. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 19:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Maybe this task should also specify if the cousin primes are to be listed in pairs &nbsp; (or not), &nbsp; dealer's choice? &nbsp; &nbsp; I prefer a simple list of cousin primes &nbsp; (not shown in pairs, &nbsp; as it looks simpler and less cluttered, &nbsp; but it's only an opinion.
 
::Also made it "both less", matching the [[Twin_primes]] task. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 20:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
This also raises the question (again), &nbsp; if we are to (for instance) list all cousin primes less than 100, &nbsp; should &nbsp; '''97''' &nbsp; be shown? &nbsp; Of course it should, &nbsp; because it &nbsp;''is''&nbsp; a cousin prime; &nbsp; but its (higher) cousin prime is out of range. &nbsp; &nbsp; -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 18:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)