2

I've looked at these links already;

What are the limits of the Prime-functions?

What is so special about Prime?

which gave an answer for earlier versions of Mathematica. Yet when I try to input either OmegaPrime or OmegaPrimePi, and then hit enter, I don't get any numbers. I have tried using N[OmegaPrime] to force a number. It's as if the functions have been removed in version 9.0 . And someone mentioned using PrimeOmega, so I tried that and N[PrimeOmega]. I would also like to know if version 10.0 has a higher Prime[n] so I can decide on whether to upgrade.

Community
  • 1
user24719
  • 137
  • 8
  • 4
    OmegaPrime never existed in any version of Mathematica; you misunderstood Artes's statement. This number was found by him using a divide-and-conquer method. It is not a value tabulated in Mathematica itself but depends on the implementation of Prime. – Oleksandr R. Sep 14 '15 at 16:08
  • @ Oleksandr R. - I would accept your comment as an answer, if you re-post comment as an answer, I can award you reputation points. – user24719 Sep 17 '15 at 21:29
  • Thanks, but since the question has been marked as a duplicate, it is not possible to add an answer any more. It doesn't matter about the points. Actually, I was unsure about whether your question concerned OmegaPrime specifically, or the limits of Prime more generally. I don't know if the latter have been changed for Mathematica 10 (although I suspect not, given Daniel Lichtblau's remarks), but if the limitations are your main concern, the other thread seems to cover this topic well enough and your question can legitimately be considered a duplicate. – Oleksandr R. Sep 17 '15 at 22:12
  • @ http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/users/312/oleksandr-r – user24719 Sep 22 '15 at 15:32
  • @ Oleksandr R. -That sucks. I don't consider this question to be duplicate since I edited the question so that it would not be duplicate anymore and cater to the answer (which is a backwards way I have of doing things). It was marked as duplicate before I edited it. An answer is a curiosity but no longer needed, as I've since explored the constraints of Mathematica and have mathematically determined on paper that the initial max "seed prime" for the code/formula I developed is well under the max Prime[n] and also at a size that can be determined in 0.000? time. Good news, I will explain... – user24719 Sep 22 '15 at 15:52
  • @ Oleksandr R. - My new code/formula is based on a new and simple number theory I've discovered. The code works by using an initial input of a list of the "seed primes" with the last prime being the nth prime. The beauty is the formula will then yield the primes after the nth prime, all the way up to the square of the nth prime. These additional primes are added onto the seed list, and then used in the next iteration of the code to generate even more primes. The first iteration uses P^1 and yeilds upto P^2. Then P^2 to P^4... so after "n" iterations, the yield is P^(2^n). – user24719 Sep 22 '15 at 16:12
  • Sounds interesting. I suggest not to be too concerned about this thread, but you should certainly consider posting your method as an answer in this one. – Oleksandr R. Sep 22 '15 at 16:51
  • @ Oleksandr R. - Correction: My new code/formula is based on a new and simple number theory I've discovered. The code works by using an initial input of a list of the "seed primes" with the last prime being the nth prime. The beauty is the formula will then yield the primes after the nth prime, all the way up to the square of the nth prime. These additional primes are added onto the seed list, and then used in the next iteration of the code to generate even more primes. The first iteration uses Prime[n]^1 and yeilds up to Prime[n]^2. After "x" iterations, the yield is Prime[n]^(2^x). – user24719 Sep 22 '15 at 19:36
  • @ Oleksandr R. "consider posting your method as an answer in this one."

    Interesting is putting it mildly. I have never been happier because I finally get to do work that is intellectual and creative. The elevator speech is: I had 4yrs of Art in High School, 7 yrs of Art and Math up to Calculus. I failed Calculus because I had a kind of dsylexia with Logarithums. And I failed because it was a 5 credit semester course crammed into a summer class. And I started smoking a little too much weed. Been depressed ever since. I had met my wife at college, and followed her when she graduated.

     – user24719 Sep 22 '15 at 20:15
  • @ Oleksandr R. - A few jobs later, I started welding in 2006 and have been doing it since. There's was a little room for creativity, but a few times I got too creative and spent too much time coming up with million dollar ideas that fell on deaf ears. My production rate suffered because I was making so many engineering change requests and red marking up prints. The last two days, I was really sick. And the dayshift royally messed up some parts and I spent all day reworking them, and then there was no way in their system to claim time or parts for rework. – user24719 Sep 22 '15 at 20:27
  • @ Oleksandr R. - And then the forklift drivers wouldn't get me jobs lined up, and then they did, and then they took the job away and gave it to someone else. I spent hours waiting for jobs cause the forklift drivers weren't doing their job, and there once again, no way for me to claim the time in their system. I got a call from the temp agency, said they didn't need me anymore, never asked for a reason why my production declined. They also said that management had talked with me when they never did. I'm clearly still pissed. I've had 20+ jobs since 2006, mostly temp, and was the faster worker. – user24719 Sep 22 '15 at 20:39
  • I should probably quit ranting and save it for my profile... – user24719 Sep 22 '15 at 20:41
  • Pleased to meet you, and sorry to hear about the difficulties you've had, although it's good that things are getting better now. Can I suggest though that you come into the chat room if you want to have a conversation? The comments are not really a convenient or suitable place for it. I'm serious about posting that answer, because based on your comments it sounds quite spectacular, but I'm not well placed to understand it from your brief description above. :) And I'm sure others will be interested as well, so an answer is better. – Oleksandr R. Sep 22 '15 at 21:34

0 Answers0