Add new comment

Want facts and want them fast? Our Maths in a minute series explores key mathematical concepts in just a few words.
What do chocolate and mayonnaise have in common? It's maths! Find out how in this podcast featuring engineer Valerie Pinfield.
Is it possible to write unique music with the limited quantity of notes and chords available? We ask musician Oli Freke!
How can maths help to understand the Southern Ocean, a vital component of the Earth's climate system?
Was the mathematical modelling projecting the course of the pandemic too pessimistic, or were the projections justified? Matt Keeling tells our colleagues from SBIDER about the COVID models that fed into public policy.
PhD student Daniel Kreuter tells us about his work on the BloodCounts! project, which uses maths to make optimal use of the billions of blood tests performed every year around the globe.
This is probably the clearest guide to understanding Sundaram's Sieve but I feel like I'm either interpreting the instructions incorrectly or their's a minor error on this post.
First off, you state that I start with 4 and increment by 3, then I start at 7 ( adding 3 ) and increment by 5 ( adding 2 ). What's the need for any further incrementation to produce a third or more array of numbers when, through the subtracting you described, we will still get the same array of numbers ( 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, etc. )
You say that if I apply 2n + 1 to the array of numbers generated ( 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, etc. ), the answer will always be no, i.e. the number won't be prime. However, if I apply 2n + 1 to, lets say, 3, I get 7 which IS a prime number.
I'd also like to point out that the first number you state this is "not in the array" ( 5 ), is actually in the array! Applying 2n + 1 to the numbers not in the array still gives composite numbers as well such as 4. 2(4) + 1 = 9, which isn't a prime number.
I'd be extremely grateful if the explanation was either fixed or if my error in interpretation could be corrected.