Simply stunning, many thanks for the link !
Prime number patterns
61–70 of 105 posts
Re: Prime number patterns
#62Stop it, stop it, stop it, just stop. Once an article reaches the front page, it's title is no longer editable. It causes confusion and frustration, and is obviously an issue that a lot of people dislike. I don't care about prime numbers, this article was all about the visualization to me. Every time a title gets changed like this, you are telling your user base that you don't care about what they think. I feel like…
Top-10 Prime Numbers in PatternsRe: Prime number patterns
#63wow, that is very nice. Does anyone else think they notice that primes are near to highly divisible numbers?
That does make a certain amount of intuitive sense, in rough terms. In a certain "region" of the integral number line, based on the magnitude of the contained numbers, we expect a certain total number of prime factors. It makes sense that highly composite numbers might be near by primes in order to "balance out".
None of this is rigorous, but I think contains some intuition with a kernel of truth.
Re: Prime number patterns
#64Lets see how the explanation help me to solve ProjectEuler's problems.
Re: Prime number patterns
#65It would look 2x nicer if they removed 0 ~ prime number branches and waves beginning from primes. Much easier to spot, less clutter.
If they removed the branches between 0 and primes, and then removed branches beginning from primes, I don't think there would be anything left.
They should have removed 0 ~ number sections.
Re: Prime number patterns
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does give you a good intuition as to why twin primes aka N, N+2 are so common.
how so ?
The number between them have a high number of small factors including 2 and 3.
2 * 3 = 6: 5 and 7 are prime.
2 * 3 * 2 = 12: 11 and 13 are prime
2 * 3 * 3 = 18: 17 and 19 are prime
2 * 3 * 5 = 30: 11 and 13 are prime
2 * 3 * 7 = 42: 41 and 43 are prime.
However, 2 * 3 * 101 = 606 but 605 is not prime.
But,
2 * 3 * 5 * 5 = 150 and 149 and 151 are prime.
2 * 3 * 2 * 3 * 5 = 180 and 179 and 181 are prime.Re: Prime number patterns
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you talking about?
He's talking about the inability of Hacker News submissions to retain their title when it differs from the title of the article. This is particularly bothersome when the title of the article is something vague like "Prime number patterns" or "On concepts and realities." It is against the rules to talk about this problem, though. From the guidelines: "Please don't post on HN to ask or tell us something (e.g. to ask us…
> It is against the rules to talk about this problem, though. From the guidelines: "Please don't post on HN to ask or tell us something (e.g. to ask us questions about Y Combinator, or to ask or complain about moderation). If you want to say something to us, please send it to info@ycombinator.com."
Because of this, I think there should be a meta-HN so rather than shutting down discussion and causing it to bubble up and eventually boil over, it can be openly ignored until a fantastic idea comes along (or refused nonetheless), instead of total silence or a constant buzzing noise like my post and the parent which, honestly, detracts from the overall quality of HN proper.
Re: Prime number patterns
#68This doesn't work in IE 8
Re: Prime number patterns
#69Two things that were non-obvious to me but made me extremely happy when they worked: panning and zooming.
I use CAD enough that trying that was automatic. Very cool.
Re: Prime number patterns
#70It's interesting that the curve on the left passes through zero rather than one.
I've always been inclined to think 1x = x, and think of one as fundamental. But the pattern shows that rather than 1x being fundamental, rather there is the issue of x exists or x doesn't exist. x doesn't exist => 0. I wonder if 1*x = x is really a distraction away from a better type of thinking around existence.
Also, I've always been wary of the part of the rule that says that 1 is not a prime number. Why is that?.