3 ms·
What's wrong with sequence A096774 (numbers with 9*10^n+7 prime)? Why is sequence A000027 (numbers starting at 1 increasing by 1 each time) better? Because it c
by nwhitehead 11y ago
What's wrong with sequence A096774 (numbers with 9*10^n+7 prime)? Why is sequence A000027 (numbers starting at 1 increasing by 1 each time) better? Because it comes earlier in the encyclopedia of sequences?
- samatman 11y agoA000027 almost certainly has a lower Kolmogorov complexity. Nothing wrong with the other sequence, per se... the maxim "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras" appiles.
- ACow_Adonis 11y agoUnless you're in Africa? By which I mean, I think it's a common misconception amongst those that argue this is a common misconception that the knowledge which they possess and view as straightforward, natural and obvious, is neither straightforward, natural, or obvious. Common sense is really just another phrase for popular bias...
- ghusbands 11y agoThe counting numbers are simpler by every feasible measure than the other suggestions.
- progressive_dad 11y agoI prefer counting on teeth, but hey, I guess you're a fingers guy.
- lkozma 11y agoI like this idea: the OEIS-complexity of a sequence (= how early it comes in the encyclopedia). But yes, what I thought of was what the other commenter wrote: given some primitive operations, how long a program can generate the sequence?