Evidence-based library and information practice (EBLIP) or evidence-based librarianship (EBL) is the use of evidence-based practices (EBP) in the field of library and information science (LIS). This means that all practical decisions made within LIS should 1) be based on research studies and 2) that these research studies are selected and interpreted according to some specific norms characteristic for EBP. Typically such norms disregard theoretical studies and qualitative studies and consider quantitative studies according to a narrow set of criteria of what counts as evidence. If such a narrow set of methodological criteria are not applied, it is better instead to speak of research based library and information practice. == Characteristics == Evidence-based practice in general has been characterised as a positivist approach; EBLIP is therefore also a positivist approach to LIS. As such, EBLIP is an approach in contrast to other approaches to LIS. The use of statistical approaches known as meta-analysis to conclude what evidence has been reported in the literature is one among other methods which is typical for the evidence-based approach. In 2002, Booth noted the three schools of EBILP had some commonalities, including the context of day-to-day decision-making, an emphasis on improving the quality of professional practice, a pragmatic focus on the 'best available evidence', incorporation of the user perspective, the acceptance of a broad range of quantitative and qualitative research designs, and access, either first-hand or second-hand, to the (process of) evidence-based practice and its products. He added one more, that EBILP is concerned with getting the best value for money. == The role of library and information science in EBP == Evidence-based practice in general is based on a very thorough search of the scientific literature and a very thorough selection and analysis of the retrieved literature. A close familiarity with database searching is needed, and library and information professionals have important roles to play in this respect. Therefore LIS professionals should be well suited to help professionals in other disciplines doing EBP. EBLIP is the application of this approach on LIS itself. It should be mentioned, however, that EBP started in medicine as evidence-based medicine (EBM) from which it spread to other fields. Only slowly and to a limited extent has EBP moved on to LIS. The EBLIP process can be applied to a variety of scenarios in LIS, including customer service, collection development, library management and information literacy instruction. In general, quantitative methods are used in LIS research. A 2010 study revealed five categories that capture the different ways library and information professionals experience evidence-based practice: Evidence-based practice is experienced as irrelevant; Evidence-based practice is experienced as learning from published research; Evidence-based practice is experienced as service improvement; Evidence-based practice is experienced as a way of being; Evidence-based practice is experienced as a weapon.
National Parking Platform
The National Parking Platform is a digital platform in the United Kingdom providing interoperability between car park operators, parking apps, and other service providers. It enables all parking apps that support the system: RingGo, JustPark, PayByPhone, Apcoa Connect, AppyParking, and Caura to work at all participating car parks. It has been rolled out in 13 local authorities so far. It was first developed by the Department for Transport starting in 2019, and since May 2025 is controlled by the British Parking Association on a not-for-profit basis. == Participating local authorities == Buckinghamshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry City East Hertfordshire East Suffolk Liverpool City Manchester City Oxfordshire County Peterborough City Stevenage Sutton Walsall Welwyn Hatfield
Task Force on Process Mining
The IEEE Task Force on Process Mining (TFPM) is a non-commercial association for process mining. The IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) Task Force on Process Mining was established in October 2009 as part of the IEEE Computational Intelligence Society at the Eindhoven University of Technology. The task force is supported by over 80 organizations and has around 750 members. The main goal of the task force is to promote the research, development, education, and understanding of process mining. == About == In 2012, the IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence/ IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation held a session on Process Mining. Process mining is a type of research that is a mix of computational intelligence and data mining, as well as process modeling and analysis. === Activities and organization === The Task Force on Process Mining has a Steering Committee and an Advisory Board. The Steering Committee, was chaired by Wil van der Aalst in its inception in 2009, defined 15 action lines. These include the organization of the annual International Process Mining Conference (ICPM) series, standardization efforts leading to the IEEE XES standard for storing and exchanging event data, and the Process Mining Manifesto which was translated into 16 languages. The Task Force on Process Mining also publishes a newsletter, provides data sets, organizes workshops and competitions, and connects researchers and practitioners. In 2016, the IEEE Standards Association published the IEEE Standard for Extensible Event Stream (XES), which is a widely accepted file format by the process mining community. As of 2023, Boudewijn van Dongen serves as chair of the Steering Committee. Wil van der Aalst and Moe Wynn both serve as vice-chair of the Steering Committee.
Timeline of algorithms
The following timeline of algorithms outlines the development of algorithms (mainly "mathematical recipes") since their inception. == Antiquity == Before – writing about "recipes" (on cooking, rituals, agriculture and other themes) c. 1700–2000 BC – Egyptians develop earliest known algorithms for multiplying two numbers c. 1600 BC – Babylonians develop earliest known algorithms for factorization and finding square roots c. 300 BC – Euclid's algorithm c. 200 BC – the Sieve of Eratosthenes 263 AD – Gaussian elimination described by Liu Hui == Medieval Period == 628 – Chakravala method described by Brahmagupta c. 820 – Al-Khawarizmi described algorithms for solving linear equations and quadratic equations in his Algebra; the word algorithm comes from his name 825 – Al-Khawarizmi described the algorism, algorithms for using the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, in his treatise On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals, which was translated into Latin as Algoritmi de numero Indorum, where "Algoritmi", the translator's rendition of the author's name gave rise to the word algorithm (Latin algorithmus) with a meaning "calculation method" c. 850 – cryptanalysis and frequency analysis algorithms developed by Al-Kindi (Alkindus) in A Manuscript on Deciphering Cryptographic Messages, which contains algorithms on breaking encryptions and ciphers c. 1025 – Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen), was the first mathematician to derive the formula for the sum of the fourth powers, and in turn, he develops an algorithm for determining the general formula for the sum of any integral powers c. 1400 – Ahmad al-Qalqashandi gives a list of ciphers in his Subh al-a'sha which include both substitution and transposition, and for the first time, a cipher with multiple substitutions for each plaintext letter; he also gives an exposition on and worked example of cryptanalysis, including the use of tables of letter frequencies and sets of letters which can not occur together in one word == Before 1940 == 1540 – Lodovico Ferrari discovered a method to find the roots of a quartic polynomial 1545 – Gerolamo Cardano published Cardano's method for finding the roots of a cubic polynomial 1614 – John Napier develops method for performing calculations using logarithms 1671 – Newton–Raphson method developed by Isaac Newton 1690 – Newton–Raphson method independently developed by Joseph Raphson 1706 – John Machin develops a quickly converging inverse-tangent series for π and computes π to 100 decimal places 1768 – Leonhard Euler publishes his method for numerical integration of ordinary differential equations in problem 85 of Institutiones calculi integralis 1789 – Jurij Vega improves Machin's formula and computes π to 140 decimal places, 1805 – FFT-like algorithm known by Carl Friedrich Gauss 1842 – Ada Lovelace writes the first algorithm for a computing engine 1903 – A fast Fourier transform algorithm presented by Carle David Tolmé Runge 1918 - Soundex 1926 – Borůvka's algorithm 1926 – Primary decomposition algorithm presented by Grete Hermann 1927 – Hartree–Fock method developed for simulating a quantum many-body system in a stationary state. 1934 – Delaunay triangulation developed by Boris Delaunay 1936 – Turing machine, an abstract machine developed by Alan Turing, with others developed the modern notion of algorithm. == 1940s == 1942 – A fast Fourier transform algorithm developed by G.C. Danielson and Cornelius Lanczos 1945 – Merge sort developed by John von Neumann 1947 – Simplex algorithm developed by George Dantzig == 1950s == 1950 – Hamming codes developed by Richard Hamming 1952 – Huffman coding developed by David A. Huffman 1953 – Simulated annealing introduced by Nicholas Metropolis 1954 – Radix sort computer algorithm developed by Harold H. Seward 1964 – Box–Muller transform for fast generation of normally distributed numbers published by George Edward Pelham Box and Mervin Edgar Muller. Independently pre-discovered by Raymond E. A. C. Paley and Norbert Wiener in 1934. 1956 – Kruskal's algorithm developed by Joseph Kruskal 1956 – Ford–Fulkerson algorithm developed and published by R. Ford Jr. and D. R. Fulkerson 1957 – Prim's algorithm developed by Robert Prim 1957 – Bellman–Ford algorithm developed by Richard E. Bellman and L. R. Ford, Jr. 1959 – Dijkstra's algorithm developed by Edsger Dijkstra 1959 – Shell sort developed by Donald L. Shell 1959 – De Casteljau's algorithm developed by Paul de Casteljau 1959 – QR factorization algorithm developed independently by John G.F. Francis and Vera Kublanovskaya 1959 – Rabin–Scott powerset construction for converting NFA into DFA published by Michael O. Rabin and Dana Scott == 1960s == 1960 – Karatsuba multiplication 1961 – CRC (Cyclic redundancy check) invented by W. Wesley Peterson 1962 – AVL trees 1962 – Quicksort developed by C. A. R. Hoare 1962 – Bresenham's line algorithm developed by Jack E. Bresenham 1962 – Gale–Shapley 'stable-marriage' algorithm developed by David Gale and Lloyd Shapley 1964 – Heapsort developed by J. W. J. Williams 1964 – multigrid methods first proposed by R. P. Fedorenko 1965 – Cooley–Tukey algorithm rediscovered by James Cooley and John Tukey 1965 – Levenshtein distance developed by Vladimir Levenshtein 1965 – Cocke–Younger–Kasami (CYK) algorithm independently developed by Tadao Kasami 1965 – Buchberger's algorithm for computing Gröbner bases developed by Bruno Buchberger 1965 – LR parsers invented by Donald Knuth 1966 – Dantzig algorithm for shortest path in a graph with negative edges 1967 – Viterbi algorithm proposed by Andrew Viterbi 1967 – Cocke–Younger–Kasami (CYK) algorithm independently developed by Daniel H. Younger 1968 – A graph search algorithm described by Peter Hart, Nils Nilsson, and Bertram Raphael 1968 – Risch algorithm for indefinite integration developed by Robert Henry Risch 1969 – Strassen algorithm for matrix multiplication developed by Volker Strassen == 1970s == 1970 – Dinic's algorithm for computing maximum flow in a flow network by Yefim (Chaim) A. Dinitz 1970 – Knuth–Bendix completion algorithm developed by Donald Knuth and Peter B. Bendix 1970 – BFGS method of the quasi-Newton class 1970 – Needleman–Wunsch algorithm published by Saul B. Needleman and Christian D. Wunsch 1972 – Edmonds–Karp algorithm published by Jack Edmonds and Richard Karp, essentially identical to Dinic's algorithm from 1970 1972 – Graham scan developed by Ronald Graham 1972 – Red–black trees and B-trees discovered 1973 – RSA encryption algorithm discovered by Clifford Cocks 1973 – Jarvis march algorithm developed by R. A. Jarvis 1973 – Hopcroft–Karp algorithm developed by John Hopcroft and Richard Karp 1974 – Pollard's p − 1 algorithm developed by John Pollard 1974 – Quadtree developed by Raphael Finkel and J.L. Bentley 1975 – Genetic algorithms popularized by John Holland 1975 – Pollard's rho algorithm developed by John Pollard 1975 – Aho–Corasick string matching algorithm developed by Alfred V. Aho and Margaret J. Corasick 1975 – Cylindrical algebraic decomposition developed by George E. Collins 1976 – Salamin–Brent algorithm independently discovered by Eugene Salamin and Richard Brent 1976 – Knuth–Morris–Pratt algorithm developed by Donald Knuth and Vaughan Pratt and independently by J. H. Morris 1977 – Boyer–Moore string-search algorithm for searching the occurrence of a string into another string. 1977 – RSA encryption algorithm rediscovered by Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, and Len Adleman 1977 – LZ77 algorithm developed by Abraham Lempel and Jacob Ziv 1977 – multigrid methods developed independently by Achi Brandt and Wolfgang Hackbusch 1978 – LZ78 algorithm developed from LZ77 by Abraham Lempel and Jacob Ziv 1978 – Bruun's algorithm proposed for powers of two by Georg Bruun 1979 – Khachiyan's ellipsoid method developed by Leonid Khachiyan 1979 – ID3 decision tree algorithm developed by Ross Quinlan == 1980s == 1980 – Brent's Algorithm for cycle detection Richard P. Brendt 1981 – Quadratic sieve developed by Carl Pomerance 1981 – Smith–Waterman algorithm developed by Temple F. Smith and Michael S. Waterman 1983 – Simulated annealing developed by S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt and M. P. Vecchi 1983 – Classification and regression tree (CART) algorithm developed by Leo Breiman, et al. 1984 – LZW algorithm developed from LZ78 by Terry Welch 1984 – Karmarkar's interior-point algorithm developed by Narendra Karmarkar 1984 – ACORN PRNG discovered by Roy Wikramaratna and used privately 1985 – Simulated annealing independently developed by V. Cerny 1985 – Car–Parrinello molecular dynamics developed by Roberto Car and Michele Parrinello 1985 – Splay trees discovered by Sleator and Tarjan 1986 – Blum Blum Shub proposed by L. Blum, M. Blum, and M. Shub 1986 – Push relabel maximum flow algorithm by Andrew Goldberg and Robert Tarjan 1986 – Barnes–Hut tree method developed by Josh Barnes and Piet Hut for fast approximate simulation of n-body problems 1987 – Fast multipole method developed by Leslie Greengard and Vladimir
Automated journalism
Automated journalism, also known as algorithmic journalism or robot journalism, is a term that attempts to describe modern technological processes that are now in use in the journalistic profession, such as news articles and videos generated by computer programs. There are four main fields of application for automated journalism, namely automated content production, data mining, news dissemination and content optimization. Through generative artificial intelligence, stories are produced automatically by computers rather than human reporters. In the 2020s, generative pre-trained transformers have enabled the generation of articles, simply by providing prompts. Automated journalism is sometimes seen as an opportunity to free journalists from routine reporting, providing them with more time for complex tasks. It also allows efficiency and cost-cutting, alleviating some financial burden that many news organizations face. However, automated journalism is also perceived as a threat to the authorship and quality of news and a threat to the livelihoods of human journalists. == History == Historically, the process involved an algorithm that scanned large amounts of provided data, selected from an assortment of pre-programmed article structures, ordered key points, and inserted details such as names, places, amounts, rankings, statistics, and other figures. These programs interpret, organize, and present data in human-readable ways. The output can also be customized to fit a certain voice, tone, or style. Early implementations were mainly used for stories based on statistics and numerical figures. Common topics include sports recaps, weather, financial reports, real estate analysis, and earnings reviews. Data science and AI companies such as Automated Insights, Narrative Science, United Robots and Monok develop and provide these algorithms to news outlets. In 2016, early adopters included news providers such as the Associated Press, Forbes, ProPublica, and the Los Angeles Times. StatSheet, an online platform covering college basketball, runs entirely on an automated program. In 2006, Thomson Reuters announced their switch to automation to generate financial news stories on its online news platform. Reuters used a tool called Tracer. An algorithm called Quakebot published a story about a 2014 California earthquake on The Los Angeles Times website within three minutes after the shaking had stopped. The Associated Press began using automation to cover 10,000 minor baseball leagues games annually, using a program from Automated Insights and statistics from MLB Advanced Media. Outside of sports, the Associated Press also uses automation to produce stories on corporate earnings. Since 2014, Associated Press has been publishing quarterly financial stories with help from Automated Insights. In May 2020, Microsoft announced that a number of its MSN contract journalists would be replaced by robot journalism. On 8 September 2020, The Guardian published an article entirely written by the neural network GPT-3, although the published fragments were manually picked by a human editor. Agentic Tribune produces all of its news articles automatically using AI. News broadcasters in Kuwait, Greece, South Korea, India, China and Taiwan have presented news with anchors based on generative AI models, prompting concerns about job losses for human anchors and audience trust in news that has historically been influenced by parasocial relationships with broadcasters, content creators or social media influencers. Algorithmically generated anchors have also been used by allies of ISIS for their broadcasts. In 2023, Google reportedly pitched a tool to news outlets that claimed to "produce news stories" based on input data provided, such as "details of current events". Some news company executives who viewed the pitch described it as "[taking] for granted the effort that went into producing accurate and artful news stories." In February 2024, Google launched a program to pay small publishers to write three articles per day using a beta generative AI model. The program does not require the knowledge or consent of the websites that the publishers are using as sources, nor does it require the published articles to be labeled as being created or assisted by these models. Meta AI, a chatbot based on Llama 3 which summarizes news stories, was noted by The Washington Post to copy sentences from those stories without direct attribution and to potentially further decrease the traffic of online news outlets. == Benefits == === Speed === Robot reporters are built to produce large quantities of information at quicker speeds. The Associated Press announced that their use of automation has increased the volume of earnings reports from customers by more than ten times. With software from Automated Insights and data from other companies, they can produce 150 to 300-word articles in the same time it takes journalists to crunch numbers and prepare information. By automating routine stories and tasks, journalists are promised more time for complex jobs such as investigative reporting and in-depth analysis of events. Francesco Marconi of the Associated Press stated that, through automation, the news agency freed up 20 percent of reporters’ time to focus on higher-impact projects. This has also been stated by a spokesperson at Gannett, who stated "By leveraging AI, we are able to expand coverage and enable our journalists to focus on more in-depth reporting." GBH reports that AI tools help increase the reach of news publishers. Mike Carragi, a product manager at Patch, stated that they were able to increase their reach from 1200 communities to 7000 communities in just a few months without the need for new employees solely through the adoption of generative AI. In fact, many communities are served solely by AI generated content, which creates summaries of existing information within the community. === Cost === Automated journalism is cheaper because more content can be produced within less time. It also lowers labour costs for news organizations. Reduced human input means less expenses on wages or salaries, paid leaves, vacations, and employment insurance. Automation serves as a cost-cutting tool for news outlets struggling with tight budgets but still wish to maintain the scope and quality of their coverage. == Concerns == === Authorship === In an automated story, there is often confusion about who should be credited as the author. Several participants of a study on algorithmic authorship attributed the credit to the programmer; others perceived the news organization as the author, emphasizing the collaborative nature of the work. There is also no way for the reader to verify whether an article was written by a robot or human, which raises issues of transparency although such issues also arise with respect to authorship attribution between human authors too. === Credibility and quality === Concerns about the perceived credibility of automated news is similar to concerns about the perceived credibility of news in general. Critics doubt if algorithms are "fair and accurate, free from subjectivity, error, or attempted influence." Again, these issues about fairness, accuracy, subjectivity, error, and attempts at influence or propaganda has also been present in articles written by humans over thousands of years. A common criticism is that machines do not replace human capabilities such as creativity, humour, and critical-thinking. However, as the technology evolves, the aim is to mimic human characteristics. When the UK's Guardian newspaper used an AI to write an entire article in September 2020, commentators pointed out that the AI still relied on human editorial content. Austin Tanney, the head of AI at Kainos said: "The Guardian got three or four different articles and spliced them together. They also gave it the opening paragraph. It doesn’t belittle what it is. It was written by AI, but there was human editorial on that." The largest single study of readers' evaluations of news articles produced with and without the help of automation exposed 3,135 online news consumers to 24 articles. It found articles that had been automated were significantly less comprehensible, in part because they were considered to contain too many numbers. However, the automated articles were evaluated equally on other criteria including tone, narrative flow, and narrative structure. Beyond human evaluation, there are now numerous algorithmic methods to identify machine written articles although some articles may still contain errors that are obvious for a human to identify, they can at times score better with these automatic identifiers than human-written articles. A 2017 Nieman Reports article by Nicola Bruno discusses whether or not machines will replace journalists and addresses concerns around the concept of automated journalism practices. Ultimately, Bruno came to the conclusion that AI would assist journalist
The AI Con
The AI Con: How to Fight Big Tech's Hype and Create the Future We Want is a 2025 non-fiction book by linguist Emily M. Bender and sociologist Alex Hanna. It argues that much of what is labeled "artificial intelligence" is a misleading term that obscures ordinary automation while concentrating power in a small number of technology firms. The book was published in May 2025 by Harper in the United States and Bodley Head in the United Kingdom. It was developed alongside the authors' long-running podcast Mystery AI Hype Theater 3000, which critiques exaggerated claims about AI. == Synopsis == The authors present AI as a marketing umbrella that encourages audiences to infer understanding and agency where none exist. They argue readers should treat such language skeptically and to separate specific automated tasks from broad claims of intelligence. The book describes a recurring hype cycle in which corporate narratives justify data and labor extraction, the replacement of human services with cheaper substitutes, and the diversion of attention from present harms to speculative futures. While acknowledging limited uses such as pattern recognition, the authors argue that contemporary systems are best understood as text and media generators shaped by training data and human labor, not as thinking or reasoning entities. A central theme is the social and environmental cost of scaling these systems, including increased energy and water use, the appropriation of creative work for training, and the outsourcing of ghost work to low-paid data workers worldwide. These costs are linked to workplace effects, with the authors arguing that automation rarely eliminates jobs outright and more often degrades them through surveillance, work intensification, and unpaid oversight. As alternatives to passive adoption, the authors propose concrete responses: asking precise questions about what is being automated and why, demanding transparency about data and evaluation, and practicing what they call strategic refusal when deployment conflicts with evidence or values. The book also develops a vocabulary for public debate, rejecting both boosterish and doomerish narratives as grounded in the same assumption that AI is a singular, autonomous force. The authors recommend reading strategies such as favoring trusted human sources over automated summaries and using humor to deflate inflated claims. They describe a link between language to policy and power, arguing that precise terminology can help policymakers and the public resist austerity-driven automation and demand accountability for errors and harms. == Reception == The Guardian praised the book's myth-busting approach and its analysis of how hype erodes cultural and civic life by normalizing synthetic media as a substitute for human judgment. Kirkus Reviews described it as a contrarian account that catalogs concrete risks while cutting through speculative predictions. An interview in Business Insider highlighted the authors' accessible frameworks, including their proposal to describe chatbots as conversation simulators and to evaluate systems in terms of values, labor, and evidence. Coverage in GeekWire emphasized the book's call for resistance through collective bargaining, stronger data rights, and a norm of rejecting deployments that fail basic standards of necessity and evaluation. Some reviews were more critical. A review in LLRX argued that the book's tone could be overly polemical and that it gave limited attention to potential benefits claimed for generative systems. Coverage in the Financial Times, focused on Bender's broader public scholarship, situated the book within her long-standing critique of anthropomorphic narratives about large language models and her advocacy for more democratic oversight of automated systems.
Sieve of Pritchard
In mathematics, the sieve of Pritchard is an algorithm for finding all prime numbers up to a specified bound. Like the ancient sieve of Eratosthenes, it has a simple conceptual basis in number theory. It is especially suited to quick hand computation for small bounds. Whereas the sieve of Eratosthenes marks off each non-prime for each of its prime factors, the sieve of Pritchard avoids considering almost all non-prime numbers by building progressively larger wheels, which represent the pattern of numbers not divisible by any of the primes processed thus far. It thereby achieves a better asymptotic complexity, and was the first sieve with a running time sublinear in the specified bound. Its asymptotic running-time has not been improved on, and it deletes fewer composites than any other known sieve. It was created in 1979 by Paul Pritchard. Since Pritchard has created a number of other sieve algorithms for finding prime numbers, the sieve of Pritchard is sometimes singled out by being called the wheel sieve (by Pritchard himself) or the dynamic wheel sieve. == Overview == A prime number is a natural number that has no natural number divisors other than the number 1 and itself. To find all the prime numbers less than or equal to a given integer N, a sieve algorithm examines a set of candidates in the range 2, 3, …, N, and eliminates those that are not prime, leaving the primes at the end. The sieve of Eratosthenes examines all of the range, first removing all multiples of the first prime 2, then of the next prime 3, and so on. The sieve of Pritchard instead examines a subset of the range consisting of numbers that occur on successive wheels, which represent the pattern of numbers left after each successive prime is processed by the sieve of Eratosthenes. For i > 0, the ith wheel Wi represents this pattern. It is the set of numbers between 1 and the product Pi = p1 · p2 ⋯ pi of the first i prime numbers that are not divisible by any of these prime numbers (and is said to have an associated length Pi). This is because adding Pi to a number does not change whether it is divisible by one of the first i prime numbers, since the remainder on division by any one of these primes is unchanged. So W1 = {1} with length P1 = 2 represents the pattern of odd numbers; W2 = {1,5} with length P2 = 6 represents the pattern of numbers not divisible by 2 or 3; etc. Wheels are so-called because Wi can be usefully visualized as a circle of circumference Pi with its members marked at their corresponding distances from an origin. Then rolling the wheel along the number line marks points corresponding to successive numbers not divisible by one of the first i prime numbers. The animation shows W2 being rolled up to 30. It is useful to define Wi → n for n > 0 to be the result of rolling Wi up to n. Then the animation generates W2 → 30 = {1,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,25,29}. Note that up to 52 − 1 = 24, this consists only of 1 and the primes between 5 and 25. The sieve of Pritchard is derived from the observation that this holds generally: for all i > 0, the values in Wi → (p2i+1 − 1) are 1 and the primes between pi+1 and p2i+1. It even holds for i = 0, where the wheel has length 1 and contains just 1 (representing all the natural numbers). So the sieve of Pritchard starts with the trivial wheel W0 and builds successive wheels until the square of the wheel's first member after 1 is at least N. Wheels grow very quickly, but only their values up to N are needed and generated. It remains to find a method for generating the next wheel. Note in the animation that W3 = {1,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,25,29} − {5 · 1 , 5 · 5} can be obtained by rolling W2 up to 30 and then removing 5 times each member of W2.This also holds generally: for all i ≥ 0, Wi+1 = (Wi → Pi+1) − {pi+1 · w | w ∈ Wi}. Rolling Wi past Pi just adds values to Wi, so the current wheel is first extended by getting each successive member starting with w = 1, adding Pi to it, and inserting the result in the set. Then the multiples of pi+1 are deleted. Care must be taken to avoid a number being deleted that itself needs to be multiplied by pi+1. The sieve of Pritchard as originally presented does so by first skipping past successive members until finding the maximum one needed, and then doing the deletions in reverse order by working back through the set. This is the method used in the first animation above. A simpler approach is just to gather the multiples of pi+1 in a list, and then delete them. Another approach is given by Gries and Misra. If the main loop terminates with a wheel whose length is less than N, it is extended up to N to generate the remaining primes. The algorithm, for finding all primes up to N, is therefore as follows: Start with a set W = {1} and length = 1 representing wheel 0, and prime p = 2. As long as p2 ≤ N, do the following: if length < N, then extend W by repeatedly getting successive members w of W starting with 1 and inserting length + w into W as long as it does not exceed p · length or N; increase length to the minimum of p · length and N. repeatedly delete p times each member of W by first finding the largest ≤ length and then working backwards. note the prime p, then set p to the next member of W after 1 (or 3 if p was 2). if length < N, then extend W to N by repeatedly getting successive members w of W starting with 1 and inserting length + w into W as long as it does not exceed N; On termination, the rest of the primes up to N are the members of W after 1. === Example === To find all the prime numbers less than or equal to 150, proceed as follows. Start with wheel 0 with length 1, representing all natural numbers 1, 2, 3...: 1 The first number after 1 for wheel 0 (when rolled) is 2; note it as a prime. Now form wheel 1 with length 2 × 1 = 2 by first extending wheel 0 up to 2 and then deleting 2 times each number in wheel 0, to get: 1 2 The first number after 1 for wheel 1 (when rolled) is 3; note it as a prime. Now form wheel 2 with length 3 × 2 = 6 by first extending wheel 1 up to 6 and then deleting 3 times each number in wheel 1, to get 1 2 3 5 The first number after 1 for wheel 2 is 5; note it as a prime. Now form wheel 3 with length 5 × 6 = 30 by first extending wheel 2 up to 30 and then deleting 5 times each number in wheel 2 (in reverse order), to get 1 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 25 29 The first number after 1 for wheel 3 is 7; note it as a prime. Now wheel 4 has length 7 × 30 = 210, so we only extend wheel 3 up to our limit 150. (No further extending will be done now that the limit has been reached.) We then delete 7 times each number in wheel 3 until we exceed our limit 150, to get the elements in wheel 4 up to 150: 1 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 25 29 31 37 41 43 47 49 53 59 61 67 71 73 77 79 83 89 91 97 101 103 107 109 113 119 121 127 131 133 137 139 143 149 The first number after 1 for this partial wheel 4 is 11; note it as a prime. Since we have finished with rolling, we delete 11 times each number in the partial wheel 4 until we exceed our limit 150, to get the elements in wheel 5 up to 150: 1 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 25 29 31 37 41 43 47 49 53 59 61 67 71 73 77 79 83 89 91 97 101 103 107 109 113 119 121 127 131 133 137 139 143 149 The first number after 1 for this partial wheel 5 is 13. Since 13 squared is at least our limit 150, we stop. The remaining numbers (other than 1) are the rest of the primes up to our limit 150. Just 8 composite numbers are removed, once each. The rest of the numbers considered (other than 1) are prime. In comparison, the natural version of Eratosthenes sieve (stopping at the same point) removes composite numbers 184 times. == Pseudocode == The sieve of Pritchard can be expressed in pseudocode, as follows: algorithm Sieve of Pritchard is input: an integer N >= 2. output: the set of prime numbers in {1,2,...,N}. let W and Pr be sets of integer values, and all other variables integer values. k, W, length, p, Pr := 1, {1}, 2, 3, {2}; {invariant: p = pk+1 and W = Wk ∩ {\displaystyle \cap } {1,2,...,N} and length = minimum of Pk,N and Pr = the primes up to pk} while p2 <= N do if (length < N) then Extend W,length to minimum of plength,N; Delete multiples of p from W; Insert p into Pr; k, p := k+1, next(W, 1) if (length < N) then Extend W,length to N; return Pr ∪ {\displaystyle \cup } W - {1}; where next(W, w) is the next value in the ordered set W after w. procedure Extend W,length to n is {in: W = Wk and length = Pk and n > length} {out: W = Wk → {\displaystyle \rightarrow } n and length = n} integer w, x; w, x := 1, length+1; while x <= n do Insert x into W; w := next(W,w); x := length + w; length := n; procedure Delete multiples of p from W,length is integer w; w := p; while pw <= length do w := next(W,w); while w > 1 do w := prev(W,w); Remove pw from W; where prev(W, w) is the previous value in the ordered set W before w. The algorithm can be initialized with W0 instead of W1 at the minor complication of making next(W, 1) a special case when k = 0. This a