A new problem.
“Answer to alpha-primes problem”.
Or must it have a verb if it has to be a sentence?
It should be understandable and not ambiguous. This set {2,3,5,7,...,97} should be well defined by it.
What does describe mean? Does “The set of all primes smaller than 100” count?
No, you should define primes, otherwise it is trivial.
How far do I need to define it? Does “The set of naturals smaller than 100 not divisible by 2, 3, 5 or 7”? count?
Sure it counts. Can you do better? For this one is wrong,
Do you accept “Naturals below 100 with exactly two divisors”?
Also, are we counting length in words, or characters, or?
This one is good.
But it would be even better by saying “Naturals below 98 with exactly two divisors”?
One character better. Which is the answer on your second question.
Naturals below 98 with exactly two 2 divisors
Naturals below 98 with exactly 2 divisors
first 25 naturals with exactly 2 divisors
Marginal: ints 2 to 98 with just 2 divisors
(“ints” is only vaguely English; “just” is fine here, but debatable if you don’t exclude 1.)
Also marginal: “numbers” instead of “naturals”. Less precise, but there’s only one sensible interpretation.
I like your solution. Agree with you on all your points, too.
Can you do even better?
Well, “factors” is shorter than “divisors”.
first 25 2 factors ints?
I think “first 25 2 factor ints” is more grammatical. Also shorter.
And if abbreviating “ints” is ok, so too is saving two characters by the use of “1st”.
I guess it’s the best way in English to somehow denote primes from 2 to 97.
Except for the “first 25 primes”, THYJOKING gave on my site, but was “discouraged” by me as a “trivial solution”.
Well, my “solution” or “kind of a solution” is
18402141709049765764
Shorter. All you have to do, is to convert this decimal number to the base 6:
3514510504510414114110404
Viewing this as a binary coded hexadecimal, there is the bitmap for primes up to 99. From left to right.
0011 0101 0001 0100 0101 0001 0000 0101 0000 0100 0101 0001 0000 0100 0001 0100 0001 0001 0100 0001 0001 0000 0100 0000 0100
For this size bitstrings, only one in 100 billion can be processed this way.
Right!
Well, “The set of all primes less than 100” definitely works, so we need to shorten this.
It doesn’t work, it’s a trivial solution. Get rid of the word prime. Rephrase!
But even if that was a solution, it’s not the shortest one.
Very short solution: “madhatter’s answer”. Just two words and very clearly refers to “the set of all primes less than 100″.
“solution above” is then even better.
But it doesn’t work without the two previous “solutions”. No good, sorry.
A new problem.
“Answer to alpha-primes problem”.
Or must it have a verb if it has to be a sentence?
It should be understandable and not ambiguous. This set {2,3,5,7,...,97} should be well defined by it.
What does describe mean? Does “The set of all primes smaller than 100” count?
No, you should define primes, otherwise it is trivial.
How far do I need to define it? Does “The set of naturals smaller than 100 not divisible by 2, 3, 5 or 7”? count?
Sure it counts. Can you do better? For this one is wrong,
Do you accept “Naturals below 100 with exactly two divisors”?
Also, are we counting length in words, or characters, or?
This one is good.
But it would be even better by saying “Naturals below 98 with exactly two divisors”?
One character better. Which is the answer on your second question.
Naturals below 98 with exactly
two2 divisorsfirst 25 naturals with exactly 2 divisors
Marginal: ints 2 to 98 with just 2 divisors
(“ints” is only vaguely English; “just” is fine here, but debatable if you don’t exclude 1.)
Also marginal: “numbers” instead of “naturals”. Less precise, but there’s only one sensible interpretation.
I like your solution. Agree with you on all your points, too.
Can you do even better?
Well, “factors” is shorter than “divisors”.
first 25 2 factors ints?
I think “first 25 2 factor ints” is more grammatical. Also shorter.
And if abbreviating “ints” is ok, so too is saving two characters by the use of “1st”.
I guess it’s the best way in English to somehow denote primes from 2 to 97.
Except for the “first 25 primes”, THYJOKING gave on my site, but was “discouraged” by me as a “trivial solution”.
Well, my “solution” or “kind of a solution” is
18402141709049765764
Shorter. All you have to do, is to convert this decimal number to the base 6:
3514510504510414114110404
Viewing this as a binary coded hexadecimal, there is the bitmap for primes up to 99. From left to right.
0011 0101 0001 0100 0101 0001 0000 0101 0000 0100 0101 0001 0000 0100 0001 0100 0001 0001 0100 0001 0001 0000 0100 0000 0100
For this size bitstrings, only one in 100 billion can be processed this way.
Right!
Well, “The set of all primes less than 100” definitely works, so we need to shorten this.
It doesn’t work, it’s a trivial solution. Get rid of the word prime. Rephrase!
But even if that was a solution, it’s not the shortest one.
Very short solution: “madhatter’s answer”. Just two words and very clearly refers to “the set of all primes less than 100″.
“solution above” is then even better.
But it doesn’t work without the two previous “solutions”. No good, sorry.