Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

the caveat being that the complexity of computing the formula is at best on the order of preexisting techniques, so nifty deep math, but nothing new from a computational point of view (barring more insight happening)


Sure, but nifty deep math is good enough for me.


Since it's a new approach, it's more likely to lead to a better eventual complexity than some technique that's already been milked for all it's worth.

Stay upstream.


I just looked at the article again (blog article, not maths), and I must admit the gcd in the equation does not make it seem so exciting. gcd seems algorithmically very close to other algorithms for computing primes.

On the other hand, playing around with it would probably be fun :-/


Oh, deep math? Is that all?

How boring.


I'm not sure what you mean, there are several legitimate interpretation that come to mind, but could you elaborate?

do you mean a) in the continuum of math that appears on, its deep, but not in the continuum of research mathematics?

b) calling something nifty deep math being overly simplistic?

c) something I'm missing


I was mocking the parent, actually, as if there being "nothing new" computationally somehow made it boring.


Thats fair, but wouldn't it be more constructive to explicitly articulate that?


-- BEGIN TRANSMISSION --

PERHAPS

-- END TRANSMISSION --


Not really.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: