Yeah. Only the result matters. It is a simple formula. It just counts the number of twin elements of the Nth wheel sieve modulo it's length. A better treatment on wheel sieves can be found in Paul Pritchard's original paper. I just didn't know about it when I wrote mine.
Discussion
I recall you mentioning him I think. The newton to your Leibniz
Only I am not bitter about it. ... much. Ok not really at all. It would have been nice if my advisor had worked with me to publish the part that was unique. But we were a small school that didn't really think about publishing, especially for undergrad thesis papers which were usually just a report on some self-taught topic, not original work. There was no graduate department.
Skimming it I see what it's saying I think. Funny way to lay out induction, sorta backwards and no explicit mention of "induction" in proof.
Very cool to put all of this together though, at such a young age no less 👑
I was and still am, very bad at writing proofs.
It isn't induction exactly. The proof works without it, but to get the right initial index I picked a set whose order I could easily count as the starting point.
At least I think that's how it went.
I only gave a short look after Wikipedia skim of what the sieves were, so maybe missed something. Will come back to it when my fiat overlords aren't suppressing my curiosity of things outside spreadsheets 🥲
Looked again and still seems like induction to me, but I'll take your word for it since there are too many symbols I'm only vaguely guessing at from context. Number theory hurts my brain
You are probably right. Like I said. I am bad at proofs. I do like some number theory though. I'll have to dig into those fantasy numbers at some point. They may have some tricks I could use.