Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : InfoSpace (INSP): Where GNET went! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: (Bob) Zumbrunnen who wrote (26659)	9/6/2001 4:57:07 PM
From: mikiespeedracer	Respond to of 28311

Bob, I'm worried about you. You have too much time on your hands. Prime numbers???

To: (Bob) Zumbrunnen who wrote (26659)	9/6/2001 4:57:34 PM
From: Sarkie	Respond to of 28311

LOL!! I have been trying to tell KLP that her grubs are cheezy. HWL!! We have to find something else for you to do.

To: (Bob) Zumbrunnen who wrote (26659)	9/6/2001 4:58:34 PM
From: Sarkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28311

This is a drome, and/or full house.

To: (Bob) Zumbrunnen who wrote (26659)	9/6/2001 5:34:23 PM
From: Carolyn	Respond to of 28311

You should talk to cjac - he grubs prime numbers all over the place!

To: (Bob) Zumbrunnen who wrote (26659)	9/6/2001 5:52:04 PM
From: Arcane Lore	Respond to of 28311

According to the Prime Number Theorem, the number of primes less than x is approximately x/ln(x), where ln(x) is the natural log of x. As noted in forum.swarthmore.edu this implies that if N is a prime number, then the distance to the next prime number is approximately ln(N) on average. ln(130K) is approximately 11.775 which arguably corresponds very roughly to your observation of an average difference of 10 between successive primes (or equivalently as you stated it: 10 of every 100 integers near 130K is prime).