I imagine that somewhere in that proof there must be a definition of
_simple_. Perhaps there is even a sorting algorithm that can be used to
determine which of two algorithms is the simpler.
Would such an algorithm be simple?
Brian Beesley wrote:
On Monday 23 January 2006 08:08, I wrote:
Yes. In fact I think there is a formal proof that _every_ simple algorithm
generating a list of numbers _must_ generate at least some composites.
Maybe even for sufficiently large n that _all_ subsequent terms must be
composite? Can't remember where I saw this but it does look intuitively
reasonable... There may be a dependency on the Riemann hypothesis;
I can't trace this reference unless it is to the simple formula being a
polynominal of finite degree. There is no dependency on Riemann.
Regards
Brian Beesley
_______________________________________________
Prime mailing list
[email protected]
http://hogranch.com/mailman/listinfo/prime
_______________________________________________
Prime mailing list
[email protected]
http://hogranch.com/mailman/listinfo/prime
