⚠️ Warning: This is a draft ⚠️

This means it might contain formatting issues, incorrect code, conceptual problems, or other severe issues.

If you want to help to improve and eventually enable this page, please fork RosettaGit's repository and open a merge request on GitHub.

== Different results for 6,4,2 ==

I am getting slightly different results for the last group than the Python example and am finding it hard to see where I may be wrong. I am finding 337 groups. Am I just mising something? --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 01:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Doh! It's me, I glossed over the 'successive' part of the problem. Update to follow. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 01:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

==Task background== It's my birthday soon so I googled my age and found:

• It's a prime.
• It's a twin prime.

I searched Rosetta Code and found that there was no twin prime task! (I had expected that someone would have already started it). I resolved to wait until closer to my birthday then put up a twin primes task and left it at that.

A few days later I started to think of what a generalisation around the idea of twin primes would be and hit on a difference; then multiple differences; then really liked how my solution to generating a sliding group of items from a list actually did come from the Python fundamentals: :

```zip(*(lst[n:] for n in range(count)))
```

I finished the code and played with the differences then firmed up what the task details would become. I wrote the task and added extra explanations and emphasis to try and help the reader grasp the details, then went to bed.

Today I've just done a search of the primes generated from differences of `2, 4` on OEIS to find that it is [https://oeis.org/A275515 known] to some degree, but expressed differently and not as generally as here - I guess recreational maths peeps think alike :-)

Enjoy. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 06:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC) :It is very well studied, but you must state it slightly differently. Let P2 be the infinite sequence of successive primes (p2_a,P2_b) such that P2_b-P2_a=2. and P4 be the similar infinite sequence (P4_a,P4_b) such that P4_b-P4_a = 4. The your generalization to P2P4 as 3 successive primes with Pa,Pb,Pc with Pb-Pa=2 and Pc-Pb=4 is a search through P2 and P4 to find P2_b=P4_a. An interesting study would be to compute over a large range the length of P2 and P4 and thus predict the length of P2P4. For a given range should the length of P2P4 be the same as P4P2?--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 13:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

:: I was going to add a twin prime task (and cousin prime task, a difference of four), but was somewhat preempted with addition of the ''sexy prime'' task (a difference of six), so I dithered a bit. There are other named difference primes such as ''devil'' (also called ''beast''), ''centennial'', and ''millennial'' primes. However, having a Rosetta Code task just for twin primes would make the code a lot cleaner and simpler, not to mention faster. This would've made the task solutions more easier to compare (and I think more useful for people who wanted a clean and robust code for just concerning the generation of twin primes). Plus it would be easier to find when people are looking for a simple twin prime generator. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 21:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

:: I googled my age, and found it to be ''highly totient''. And I'll never be ''highly totient''. again. Sigh. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 21:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC) ::: I enjoyed the google to work that out :-) --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 06:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)