this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Math Memes

1525 readers
2 users here now

Memes related to mathematics.

Rules:
1: Memes must be related to mathematics in some way.
2: No bigotry of any kind.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

A few calculations I did last time I saw this meme (over at [email protected]):

  • There are 9592 prime numbers less than 100,000. Assuming the test suite only tests numbers 1-99999, the accuracy should actually be only 90.408%, not 95.121%
  • The 1 trillionth prime number is 29,996,224,275,833. This would mean even the first 29 trillion primes would only get you to 96.667% accuracy.

In response to the question of how long it would take to round up to 100%:

  • The density of primes can be approximated using the Prime Number Theorem: 1/ln(x). Solving 99.9995 = 100 - 100 / ln(x) for x gives e^200000 or 7.88 × 10^86858. In other words, the universe will end before any current computer could check that many numbers.

Edit: Fixed community link

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think a more concise answer to the second one would be; it depends on where you decide to round, but as you run it, it approaches 100%, or 99.99 repeating (which is 100%)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

The screenshot displays 3 decimal places, which is the the precision I used. As it turns out, even just rounding to the nearest integer still requires checking more numbers than we even have the primes enumerated for (e^200 or 7x10^86)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It would be very easy to increase that to 100%, if you're prepared to ignore enough data...

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Actually it would approach 100% without ignoring data wouldn’t it?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

But the only way it would actually get there depends on you, and your willingness to ignore data. :)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wait till you include floating numbers. "There are an infinite numbe of numbers between any two natural numbers" So technically you could increase that percentage to 99.9999....%

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

You don't even need floats for that. Just increase the amount of tests.