![](/static/61a827a1/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://programming.dev/pictrs/image/170721ad-9010-470f-a4a4-ead95f51f13b.png)
31·
2 years agoWe got nerd sniped at almost the exact same time, but approached this in very different ways. I applaud your practical approach, but based on what I calculated, you should stop now. It will never reach 99.999%
We got nerd sniped at almost the exact same time, but approached this in very different ways. I applaud your practical approach, but based on what I calculated, you should stop now. It will never reach 99.999%
A few calculations:
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.I got to this same result on my 3rd attempt, and had to throw in the towel. Everything’s randomized every time.
To be fair, I used to work there, and not even Microsoft understands their docs.
99.5% would still be
e^200
numbers checked (7x10^86
). According to the Quora link in my other comment, we’ve only calculated primes in sequence up to4x10^18
as of 7 years ago. 95% is very doable though.Edited to correct first N primes vs primes up to N.