The discussion revolves around the efficiency of two methods for primality testing: the Sieve of Eratosthenes and a derivative-based approach. Participants explore the computational aspects and practicality of each method, considering their applicability to large numbers.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the efficiency of the two methods. There are competing views regarding the practicality and computational time associated with the Sieve of Eratosthenes versus the derivative method.
Participants express uncertainty about the efficiency of both methods, particularly in relation to large numbers. There are unresolved assumptions about the computational complexity of each approach.
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