## increments the index such that the new index is now that prime[edit]

I must start with the index i 42.

I must increment i until it is prime, so 43.
I must now increment i such that the new i is now 43?

I interpreted the sentence ' increments the index such that the new index is now that prime ' to mean you wanted me to set i to 43+43 but this is not what the task specification says.--Nigel Galloway (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. How about:

════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

- Task

Write a loop which:

- starts the index (variable) at
**42** - (at iteration time) increments the index by unity
- if the index is prime:

- displays the count of primes found (so far) and the prime (to the terminal)
- increments the index such that the new index is now the (old) index plus that prime

- terminates the loop when
**42**primes are shown

- starts the index (variable) at

════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Would this be satisfactory? -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

- Works for me.--Nigel Galloway (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I had (originally) had wording in the task's requirements to make it clear(er) (ha!, not so much) that the index was to be (possibly *also*) incremented (by the computer program) by the prime just found, but if done/interpreted another way and the index was incremented by the another "extra" *+1*, (by **do** loop structure mechanism) the new index (a *prime+prime*) is never a prime, and if the index was incremented (*+1*) by the **do** loop structure mechanism, no harm was done (that is, at the worst, an extra check for primality was performed for the new index *prime+prime* instead of *prime+prime+1*. So the extra wording, as it turns out, wasn't necessary, but I wanted the incrementation to be clear. So this almost (did?) became a "Who's on first?" sort of a word mess. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

- Well, I suppose the advantage of this description is that it indicates why you should not do this!, +1 for those imperative languages that prevent it--Nigel Galloway (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

- The task's requirements has been updated (to the above). -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, does this mean that the first Kotlin solution is an example of what isn't wanted? As I understand it, that solution checks if i is prime, and if it is, it replaces i with 2*i and then checks that. It looks like the Lua and Nanoquery solutions have the same issue, but I'm drifting away from languages that I know. --ReeceGoding (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)