The discussion centers on the efficiency of the Sieve of Eratosthenes compared to the Derivative Method for primality testing. Participants agree that the Sieve of Eratosthenes is simpler and less time-consuming, especially for larger numbers. The conversation highlights the complexity of the Derivative Method, which involves taking multiple derivatives and performing division, suggesting it may not be optimal for practical use. Overall, the Sieve of Eratosthenes is favored for its straightforward implementation in determining prime numbers.
PREREQUISITESMathematicians, computer scientists, and software developers interested in number theory and algorithm optimization will benefit from this discussion.
Interesting. However I find the usual sieve of Erastothenes to be simpler and less time consuming. (I believe that the two methods are related to each other anyway.)Hugo1177 said:We can determinate if one number is prime with the modulo operation.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346647223_Primality_Test_Formula
I'm not an expert either. I'm simply guessing that taking derivatives is more time consuming than doing the sieve. I admit I may be wrong.Hugo1177 said:I am not an expert in computational time, are you sure that the sieve is better for big numbers? I hear that there aren´t a efficient form to determinate if a number is prime or not in polynomial time. Here you only have to do the 30th or 40th derivative and divide one number relatively big by other