Open Einyen1 opened 3 years ago
I am not completely sure what you are referring to, yes sure the intervall should be in integer bounds, but it is for your case, isn't it? Can you be a little more specific regading the issue you are facing?
Sorry, it is not really an issue, I just thought it is confusing or misleading to write n ≦ rad(a) < n+1 when rad(a) is an integer, and I assumed the interval handed out is always 1 but maybe sometimes the interval is larger?
Oh, in that case you are completely right. We were experimenting with different interval sizes and concluded that a step of two (i.e. a diff of one) is just enough to keep people interested. Sorry for the confusion.
Re-reading your question, I think I finally got it. You are referring to the intervalls being displayed as intervalls of size one, correct? In this case, we have a bug in the display, as the intervalls are actually of size two. I will fix that.
Thanks, I had no idea the size was actually 2 and the display is wrong :) My main concern was that since the interval was 1, it made it look like rad(a) and rad(b) were real numbers, since it is a somewhat cumbersome way of writing integers in an "interval" of 1.
The radical is supposed to be an integer or are you using a different definition?
If not then: Finding intervals for 399 ≦ rad(a) < 400, 407 ≦ rad(b) < 408 Should be: Finding intervals for rad(a) = 399, rad(b) = 407