Amazon is running a Prime Day sale on July 16 and 17. Setting aside the fact that this is two separate days, neither 716 nor 717 are prime numbers. They should’ve done 7/19 instead.

    • hddsx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      4 months ago

      I maintain that dd/mm/yyyy and mm/dd/yyyy are stupid.

      Big -> small is how we read numbers:

      yyyy/mm/dd

      • Old Jimmy Twodicks@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        49
        ·
        4 months ago

        I prefer the simple dy/my/dy/my format (with the year reversed for added ease of use). For example, today would be 14/02/70/72.

        NIST and ISO have stopped responding to my emails, but I’m optimistic that the Türk Standardları Enstitüsü will eventually adopt it as their preferred standard.

      • esc27@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        What if we just count all the nanoseconds since 1601 and divide by 100.

        I still don’t get that timestamp approach. Especially after learning how unix/linux handle it…

        At least modern AD tools can automatically do the date conversions now.

        • hddsx@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Because it’s a basic data structure that holds time, instead of multiple interrelated ints…. And it’s easy to do math on.

      • Fubber Nuckin'@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yes but small is more relevant since you’re more likely to know the big. therefore i propose we put minutes ahead of hours.

        • hddsx@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Big is more important than small. If your use case has the big stuff in context, drop the big.

  • synae[he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    4 months ago

    Please don’t ascribe any more meaning to prime day other than a cynical late-stage-capitalist plot for money to flow from the masses to bezos.

    • booly@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      No, I’m taking back the word “prime” from a company that shouldn’t have exclusive rights to define the term. I’m not going to cede that territory just because I don’t like the company.

  • Euphorazine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    4 months ago

    July 16th is the 197th day of the year on non leap years. July 17th is the 199th day of the year on leap years.

    Both of those are prime.

      • FeatherConstrictor@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        Oh awesome that’s a neat trick I’ve never seen before. How does that work? For a number like 700 for example, 7 + 0 + 0 = 7 but 700 is visible by 10.

            • booly@sh.itjust.worksOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              If you’re looking for a proof:

              Our base 10 system represents numbers by having little multipliers in front of each power of 10. So a number like 1234 is 1 x 10^3 + 2 x 10^2 + 3 x 10^1 + 4 x 10^0 .

              Note that 10 is just (3 x 3) + 1. So for any 2 digit number, you’re looking at the first digit times (9 + 1), plus the second digit. Or:

              (9 times the first digit) + (the first digit) + (the second digit).

              Well we know that 9 times the first digit is definitely divisible by both 3 and 9. And we know that adding two divisible-by-n numbers is also divisible by n.

              So we can ignore that first term (9 x first digit), and just look to whether first digit plus second digit is divisible. If it is, then you know that the original big number is divisible.

              And when you extend this concept out to 3, 4, or more digit numbers, you see that it holds for every power of 10, and thus, every possible length of number. For both 9 and 3.

        • derpgon@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          It works differently for each number. For 2, the last number has to be divisible by 2. For 3, the sum of the digits has to be divisible by 3 For 5, the number has to end with a 0 or a 5. For 7, it is kinda tricky. Take the last digit, double it, and subtract it from the numbers on the left. If the remainder is 0 or divisible by 7, the whole number is divisible by 7. For example 49: 9×2=18, 4-18=-14, -14/7=2 with remainder 0. For 700, 0×2=0, 70-0=70, 70/7=10 remainder 0.

          This is usually specified for prime numbers, for non-prime number, you just do calculate the prime components of a number and combine the rules.

          For example, divisibility by 15: it has to be divisible by 3 and 5. 1+5=6, 6/3=2 remainder 0. 15 ends with a 5. For number where with multiple same prime components the rules for these duplicate numbers have to apply multiple times. Like for 25, it has to end with a 5 or 0, and when dividing the number by 5, the result has to end with a 5 or a 0 aswell.

    • booly@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Well the convention was to store it as a 32 bit signed integer, so that is any number from -2^31 to (2^31 - 1). Prime numbers are formally defined as a subset of whole numbers, so let’s ignore the negative numbers and the number zero.

      Fun fact: the largest signed 32-bit integer is itself a prime. And the wikipedia page lists it as the 105,097,565th prime.

      By the time we hit the 2038 problem, there will have been about 105 million seconds since 1970 where the Unix time was a prime number. And it’s a 10-digit number in base 10, where prime frequency is something about 4% of the numbers.

      Does that answer your question about prime frequency today? Eh, I’m sure someone else can figure that out. If not, I’ll probably have to wait until I’m in front of a computer.