Anonymous user
Talk:Cousin primes: Difference between revisions
added concerns about the wording of this (draft) task.
No edit summary |
(added concerns about the wording of this (draft) task.) |
||
Line 1:
== similar to twin primes ==
I know that this task is similar to Twin primes one, but differ from that. (CalmoSoft)
<br>See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_prime
== task needs clarification ==
This task defined cousin primes, but '''7''' and '''11''' are both
cousin primes, and there are two cousin primes in this sentence.
One cousin ''pair'' is shown, but '''two''' cousin primes.
Similarly, the list of cousin primes shown in the first line of the output section of
the '''Ring''' computer language shows:
(3, 7) (7, 11) (13, 17) (19, 23) (37, 41)
(I added extra blanks) which shows '''ten''' cousin prime numbers, but one cousin prime ('''7''') is shown
duplicated. So far, two computer programming language outputs are showing ''cousin prime pairs'', and this task is asking for ''cousin primes'', not the number of ''cousin prime pairs''. I have no qualms of showing the cousin primes in pairs, but it should be very clear ''what'' we are counting (regardless of how they are shown, paired or not paired).
I think this task, in addition to showing the cousin primes in whatever manner is chosen, also include as a summary, the ''number'' of (unique) cousin primes found, whether or not a count of cousin prime pairs is also shown.
Maybe this task should also specify if the cousin primes are to be listed in pairs (or not), dealer's choice? I prefer a simple list of cousin primes (not shown in pairs, as it looks simpler and less cluttered, but it's only an opinion.
This also raises the question (again), if we are to (for instance) list all cousin primes less than 100, should '''97''' be shown? Of course it should, because it ''is'' a cousin prime; but its (higher) cousin prime is out of range. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 18:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
| |||