Talk:Strange unique prime triplets: Difference between revisions
→uniqueness of the prime numbers being added: -done
m (→added a stretch goal: added some comments concerning optimization.) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 11:
:: The renaming sounds good to me. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 13:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
* Do (3,5,11) and (11,3,5) count as distinct? IMO they shouldn't, but that should be clarified in the task. [[User:Thebigh|Thebigh]] ([[User talk:Thebigh|talk]]) 10:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
: I just assumed n<m<p was implied, can't see any problem with being specific about that. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 11:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
::I just added that stipulation for clarity. [[User:Thebigh|Thebigh]] ([[User talk:Thebigh|talk]]) 11:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
== other definitions of '''strange''' primes ==
Line 18 ⟶ 23:
One possibility is to rename this Rosetta Code task to: '''three primes summing to a prime''' or
<br>'''three unique primes summing to a prime''', or somesuch.
'''Mathoverflow''' has different definition at:
| |||