Prime numbers

Does anyone else find the Sieve of Eratosthenes and the ilk a totally pointless concept?

It like over optimising a Java program that could be written in C in a short space of time.

>>40
You can no longer reply.
Make me, anon.

Thread roll call!

>>1  Expert Drug User

>>14 Expert Omniscient

>>17 Expert Troll

>>27 Expert Autist

>>29 Expert Douche

>>30-1000 Expert Shitposters

return this.thread.containsMaxLulz;
     true   

primes = autism

>>42
>>1,14,17,27,29
Just if you wanted too see if your what was mentioned.

slightly offtopic; how would /prog/ go about generating large prime numbers? which algorithm is easiest to implement?

>>46
None. Use libraries. They are here for a reason.

But if you insist, Miller-Rabbin are autistic enough.

>>46
which algorithm is easiest to implement?
Sieve of Eratosthenes.

>>19

>>19

I repeat again with great confidence that you are unintelligent.

Show me a mathematical function that takes in positive integers and outputs the prime number at that position
In attempt to mimic standard mathematical notation, let N the set of natural numbers and let P be the set of prime numbers, and now let p:N->P, and let p(n) be the n-th prime.

Now you have a mathematical function which takes in positive integers and outputs the prime number ``at that position''.

and then I'll believe you.
I don't care if you believe me or not, it couldn't matter less what you believe.
It is the trademark of an unintelligent person to believe that what he thinks matters, it doesn't, nobody gives a shit especially if you're as unintelligent as you are.

The macro world is considered deterministic because of the great improbability of microscopic quantum effects ever propagating to the macro world. That being said however there are certain instances where you have indeterminism even in the macro world, see Schrödinger's cat.

Other than that, I implore you to return to /g/ or wherever you came from, if you are not from /g/ I can still recommend it for you, as you will find people on the same intellectual level as you.

>>50
Most entertaining countertroll in thread!

Sagetank requested.

Substitute also accepted.

>>50
So the world isn't deterministic after all? I win.

>>50
Insanity detected.

>>54
U ami luedi wei wie phoo poi?

>>53
You really think it's something to be decided by rabid arguments on /prog/?

>>56
Don't insult your opponent's intelligence here. He is obviously quite inexperienced on the subject, and yet he was able to manipulate you into validating his argument.

Your arguments degraded into ad hominem remarks and semantic sophistry, obvious attempts at sidestepping addressing  his arguments head on, presumably after you realized you weren't 100% correct.

I admit it, IHBT

>>53
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/g7939/algorithms_based_on_number_base_systems/c1lg9bs

^{_{RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE}}

>>58
reddit.com
No.

>>58
I will pray for you getting testicular cancer. ;)

>>57

I'm not >>56, I never claimed that the universe is deterministic, so I was not manipulated into validating his argument. I did however claim that the primes are deterministic. I also did claim that >>19 is unintelligent, which is an observation based on overwhelming evidence.

The fact that most of you seem unable to separate between ``the universe'' and ``the prime numbers'' is baffling to me, perhaps I am unable to dumb myself down to your level of intelligence.

Every statement I have made so far in this thread have been correct.

>>60
Go fuck an autistic nigger.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12759587

>The team from Duke University in North Carolina created autistic mice by mutating the gene which controls production of the protein, Shank3.
Poor mice have been shanked

>>64
Queit, Pinky

>>64
* Poor mice have been Shank3d.

>>66
britfag detected

>>61
isn't everything deterministic?

I mean, the concept of random is just a lie non?

Is amb deterministic?

>>68

Most random effects which are easily observable in the macro world are usually quite heavily influenced by the law of large numbers and the central limit theorem, therefore they appear to be deterministic.

A textbook example is radioactive decay, it's a stochastic process, but even though you never know when a single atom will decay you may usually through the law of large numbers quite accurately estimate when a certain portion of a large collection of nuclei have decayed.

all finite non-deterministic automata can be converted to finite deterministic automata. the universe is a finite automatum. ergo everything computation inside the universe is deterministic.

>>68
Physical determinism is still an open question.

As far as 'random' goes, there's hardly a use case for anything stronger than "unpredictable in principle" which particle decay gives us--determinism or no, we're excluded (in principle) from ever being able to predict decay events beyond a certain established accuracy.

>>72
>Physical determinism is still an open question.

No, it isn't.  Chaotic systems require infinitely precise knowledge of their state to predict correctly.  You may say, "Aha! Reality is quantized, so it's possible to know those states with infinite precision!"  Here, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is useful.

All that is required to disprove determinism is a single physically realizable chaotic system whose future state depends non-continuously on the position and momentum of a particle.

>>73
Just because you can't measure something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

>>73
Depends on one's definition of determinism. If you need the entire state of the system to calculate the next state, it's still deterministic, just not local.
The thing about QM is that it may be a bit different, you can have a function ("laws of the universe") which instead of producing one next state, it produces multiple states and those states could produce multiple states as well and so on, but the obserer will of course only observe a single state (the one he is in), thus he will observe randomness along the lines of which state was chosen. It's still unclear if this is the case for our world, but it is one possible interpretation of quantum mechanics.

>>74
If you can't measure it, you can't DETERMINE it.  There's no way to DETERMINE the future state of many systems.  Of course, they will be in some state in the future, but that state isn't DETERMINED.  (Did you notice you were replying to a post about determinism?)

>>76
The problem here lies with those within the system, but if you could look at the system from outside, it would look deterministic, no matter what the structure is.

If you are a structure within a system and the only way for you to measure other data is to interact/change it (thus making your measurements inaccurate) that doesn't make the system less deterministic, it merely makes it non-deterministic to that piece of data which is trying to measure some other data inexactly and thus cannot predict the future state. It's also possible that even if the data could measure all the other data exactly, it would still be unable t ocompute the future state as it would require itself to know the state of all the data in the system and emulate it, but the information contents would be much larger than it could be held within the system (as it is subject to limitations of the system, assuming a digital one: if real numbers are involved (if they can even exist in a physical system), it all goes to hell and lots of weird stuff becomes possible). It's the same way as trying to emulate a virtual machine within the guest OS (and include the guest OS within the emulation too) while not requiring more memory - it's impossible.

All this just means the system is non-deterministic to the information inside it, but not as a structure when viewed from the outside.

>>75
double pendulums don't require invoking quantum mechanics
some macroscopic, commonplace systems simply aren't deterministic
construct one and observe to your satisfaction that it is not deterministic
science cannot refute direct observations
there's no room for argument

>>77
operating system emulation has fuck all to do with determinism (tl;dr)

>>79
It was an analogy of the kind of problem one would be facing.