Anonymous user
Talk:Prime conspiracy: Difference between revisions
m
→numbers in the example for the task (deprecated): why no transitions of small primes with only 1 count.
No edit summary |
m (→numbers in the example for the task (deprecated): why no transitions of small primes with only 1 count.) |
||
Line 51:
::: True. I didn't mention 3 because (a) its transitions are already covered in the other two, and (2) the digit 3 shows up in the pascal and rexx tables, so it's not as obvious of a statement. (If you make 2 and 5 show up, you'd have to fix the omission of 3 as well). Anyways, I guess the point is that there's an error there that should probably be fixed sooner or later? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 01:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
:::: I changed my original pascal result, including the transitions 2->3,3->5,5->7, because of the example in front of the task, where they aren't mentioned ;-)
<lang pascal> res := Trs[0].CTR_CntTrans[i,j];
//not counting 2->3,3->5,5->7
IF res > 1 then</lang>
| |||