(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
User talk:CALR - Wikipedia Jump to content

User talk:CALR

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AndrewKepert (talk | contribs) at 08:24, 21 June 2005 (→‎Explanation on E). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hi CALR! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! -- Infrogmation 16:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation on E

Thanks for finally tidying up my flippant edit on E (mathematical constant) regarding the density of primes. I was a bit lazy in changing the original statement from "as early as" to "as late as", as I explained in talk:E (mathematical constant). Your note on the edit indicates that you probably didn't pick up on this -- there are in fact quite a lot of 10 digit primes. Cheers Andrew Kepert 09:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Following up your edit on my talk: user talk:AndrewKepert, it goes to show why people should not make value judgements when expressing facts on wikipedia:
  • Fact: roughly 1 in 22 of the 10 digit numbers is prime.
  • The original statement I edited read that "the first 10-digit prime in e is 7427466391, which surprisingly starts as soon as the 101st digit"
  • I edited this to read "which surprisingly starts as late as", given that the 1 in 22 means that in any random sequence of digits, the expected number of digits you have to pass to get a prime is 22 (glossing over the fact that we are not quite talking about statistically independent events here, but close enough not to worry me). To not get a prime after 101 random digits has probability 0.955101 ≈ 0.01 -- a 1 in 100 chance. My edit was based on this opinion: 1 in 100 is surprising (more precisely, that it is more surprising than the 99 in 100 implicit in the original statement)
  • Quite wisely, you removed any statement of opinion. WP strives towards npov, after all!
  • You commented that there are proportionally very few 10-digit primes - an opinion.
  • If I force myself to have an opinion on whether 1 in 22 is a proportionally few or many, I favour "many" -- after all, they are asymptotically of zero density. 1 in 22 is pretty reasonable odds - people bet their houses on less. But this is an opinion.
  • You say tomato, I say tomato. I think it says more about the person expressing the opinion than the fact itself.
This sort of stuff amuses me, but that is another opinion, and probably says much about me. Maybe I'm bitter about not getting the Gooogle job. 8-)
Andrew Kepert 08:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)