in reply to Caclulation of e
What's the point of all this? It's simply to show that you don't need a million digits of e to find a 10-digit prime embedded in them. 207 (198 + 9) are probably (i.e. with 99.99% assurance) enough. This assumes, of course, that sets of consecutively overlapping 10-digit subsequences in the decimal expansion of e represent independent, random samples from the integers between 0000000000 and 9999999999. That may or may not be true.
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re^2: Caclulation of e
by tachyon (Chancellor) on Jul 18, 2004 at 11:00 UTC | |
|
Re^2: Caclulation of e
by bageler (Hermit) on Jul 19, 2004 at 01:42 UTC |