Brian Beesley wrote:
> On Friday 02 November 2007 13:52, Ian Halliday wrote:
[...]
>
> Of course the data that we have at the moment is not a representative sample,
> it's really very little better than the argument that "3 is prime, 5 is
> prime, 7 is prime, 11 is prime ... obviously all odd numbers are prime".
> The "law of small numbers" is particularly misleading when it is based on
> incomplete data sets.
[...]
(Agreeing with you here...)
Any statistical argument applied to non-random circumstances
is silly. There is no probability associated with whether any
given integer be prime. It either is or it is not. It does,
however, make sense to talk about such things as eventual density
of the primes and so forth. Either there is a largest M-P, or
there is not. Now, one can make meaningful statements about how
convinced one is that there is a last M-P, of course. And Bayesian
statistics can certainly be used in that circumstance. But it
makes no sense whatsoever to discuss the probability that there
is a last M-P.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
_______________________________________________
Prime mailing list
[email protected]
http://hogranch.com/mailman/listinfo/prime
