# Difference between revisions of "Talk:Prime numbers"

(An interesting thought) |
m |
||

Line 8: | Line 8: | ||

[[User:MathematicalOrchid|MathematicalOrchid]] 16:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
[[User:MathematicalOrchid|MathematicalOrchid]] 16:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
||

+ | |||

+ | a composite can indeed have factors greater than its square root, and indeed most do. what you mean is that a composite will definitely have at least one factor smaller-equal than its square root. |
||

+ | |||

+ | why not use <hask>(\x -> n > x*x)</hask> --[[User:JohannesAhlmann|Johannes Ahlmann]] 21:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |

## Revision as of 21:18, 5 February 2007

Here's an interesting question: will the program go faster if we replace all those `(n >)`

expressions with `(\x -> floor (sqrt n) > x)`

?

On one hand, a composite integer cannot possess a factor greater than its square root.

On the other hand, since the list we're looking through contains all possible prime numbers, we are guaranteed to find a factor or an exact match eventually, so do we need the `takeWhile`

at all?

Throwing this over to somebody with a bigger brain than me...

MathematicalOrchid 16:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

a composite can indeed have factors greater than its square root, and indeed most do. what you mean is that a composite will definitely have at least one factor smaller-equal than its square root.

why not use `(\x -> n > x*x)`

--Johannes Ahlmann 21:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)