🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Bstqr2.Lxq@cs.columbia.edu> ji@cs.columbia.edu (John Ioannidis) writes:
>In article <1557@anagld.analytics.com> sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn) writes:
>
>>In my humble excursions into this arena, I've noticed that primes are roughly
>>11% of the numbers of x digits in length.  Is it feasible to compile a table
>>of primes? Sure.  But it's gonna be one heck of a list.  The number of primes
>>is not infinite (I'm probably going to get flamed on that remark).
>
>Flamed? FLAMED? Why, what was the last time anyone on the net was
>flamed for being ignorant? :-)
>

Several people have jumped on "The number of primes is not infinite" statment,
which clearly is flammable by itself.

In the context of the original message though, I believe the poster meant
"The number of primes of exactly 10**75 digits (or perhaps of
10**(75+/-3) digits) is not infinite."  This number may be more than the
number of atoms in the universe, but it *is* finite.


-- 
   Dave Kemp   dpkemp@afterlife.ncsc.mil 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The use of history as therapy means the corruption of history as history."
    -- Arthur Schlesinger          (quote stolen from Chet Ramey, CWRU)