5 ms·
the caveat being that the complexity of computing the formula is at best on the order of preexisting techniques, so nifty deep math, but nothing new from a comp
by carterschonwald 18y ago
the caveat being that the complexity of computing the formula is at best on the order of preexisting techniques, so nifty deep math, but nothing new from a computational point of view (barring more insight happening)
- michael_dorfman 18y agoSure, but nifty deep math is good enough for me.
- jfarmer 18y agoOh, deep math? Is that all? How boring.
- CSchonwald 18y agoI'm not sure what you mean, there are several legitimate interpretation that come to mind, but could you elaborate? do you mean a) in the continuum of math that appears on, its deep, but not in the continuum of research mathematics? b) calling something nifty deep math being overly simplistic? c) something I'm missing
- jfarmer 18y agoI was mocking the parent, actually, as if there being "nothing new" computationally somehow made it boring.
- CSchonwald 18y agoThats fair, but wouldn't it be more constructive to explicitly articulate that?
- DaniFong 18y agoSince it's a new approach, it's more likely to lead to a better eventual complexity than some technique that's already been milked for all it's worth. Stay upstream.
- Tichy 18y agoI just looked at the article again (blog article, not maths), and I must admit the gcd in the equation does not make it seem so exciting. gcd seems algorithmically very close to other algorithms for computing primes. On the other hand, playing around with it would probably be fun :-/