Talk:Chowla numbers: Difference between revisions

: Do we really need to agree on this kind of thing ? Optional seems more than good enough [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 12:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

:: +1 for that. See below. If the language supports locales for numbers then OK. Writing a subroutine putting commas every 3 digits in an Anglophobe interpretation of appropriate seems worse than pointless almost stupid.--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 15:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

 

==http://www.syllabus.ca/en/didyouknow-en/writing-numbers-in-french-and-english/==

 

:::: I have never read responses (or opinions) on the above books on whether or not that those epigraphs should/shouldn't be included in the respective books, or even a discussion on they being appropriate (or not), or even the merits of the quoted texts. &nbsp; We could discuss the merits of Gauss' opinion, but that wasn't the point of the epigraph. &nbsp; When one discusses the book ''Frankenstein'', John Milton's quote is <u>never</u> talked about &nbsp; (well, except for here). &nbsp; I never thought that adding an epigraph would ruffle so many feathers. &nbsp; I had thought that the collegiate reader's minds on Rosetta Code would appreciate a relevant quote. &nbsp; To move the epigraph to the discussion page would surely distract from the Rosetta Code task of chowla numbers. &nbsp; But perhaps a discussion on number theory and how '''chowla numbers''' relates to that would be refreshing. &nbsp; &nbsp; -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 00:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

 

==Large computations==

::Unfortunately I later learned that the sympy library holding divisors is pure Python, but it is well regarded so I used it rather than creating my own.

::Hi Gerard, I mainly program in interpreted Python but '''don't''' want the present limits to be lowered.

 

::: Does Python use a non-interpreted "language" for its BIFs? &nbsp; (In particular, &nbsp; '''divisors'''.) &nbsp; &nbsp; The reason I ask is that I wrote a home-grown &nbsp; '''divisors''' &nbsp; REXX function that instead of finding the divisors, and then adding them (say, with a &nbsp; '''sum''' &nbsp; function), I modified a version of the &nbsp; '''divisors''' &nbsp; code to instead of creating a list of proper divisors, I had the function just add the divisors on-the-fly (eliminating the stand-alone summation part). &nbsp; I then further modified the function to be aware if the target is odd or even, and adjusted the &nbsp; '''do''' &nbsp; loop accordingly (along with the &nbsp; '''do''' &nbsp; loop increment); &nbsp; that doubled the speed (or halved the computation time, &nbsp; pot-tay-toe, pot-tah-toe). &nbsp; Essentially, I coded a &nbsp; '''sigma_proper_divisors''' &nbsp; function with the subtraction of unity as being built-in by starting the summation with zero instead of unity). &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Do you happen to know if Python's &nbsp; '''divisors''' &nbsp; BIF does that? &nbsp; I would suspect that it does. &nbsp; In any case, this is why I included several formulas/algorithms to calculate the &nbsp; '''chowla''' &nbsp; function so that programmers could choose the fastest (most efficient) algorithm. &nbsp; &nbsp; -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 23:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

 

== Mistakenly posted discussion on the task page ==

 

The comments below were in response to some inappropriate remarks made within the '''Perl 6''' header section, which have since been removed. &nbsp; &nbsp; -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 23:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

 

:: "We" aren't using a thing poorly suited to finding prime numbers. &nbsp; This Rosetta Code task (as also the totient function task) is to show that it ''can'' find or determine prime numbers, and as a proof/validation that the computer programs work. &nbsp; No one is disputing that these tasks are not suited to find prime numbers. &nbsp; These kinds of silly statements don't belong on this page, the ''discussion'' page is more suited for that, but try to keep the tone civil instead of condescending and demeaning. &nbsp; Please try and keep this site professional. &nbsp; If you don't know why a task requirement was included, then ask (on the task discussion page or a user discussion page). &nbsp; It's this sort of sniping that some people are being critical of Rosetta Code. &nbsp; People don't respond to rudeness and pettiness. &nbsp; &nbsp; -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 17:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC) &nbsp; &nbsp; (this task's author).

 

In removing the inappropriate Perl 6 comment, I note that it touched on two topics that already have sections here on the talk page. Maybe the Perl6 author might like to join those discussions? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 23:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

 

: Paddy, you may also want to remove a similar comment in the '''Perl 6''' header section for the Rosetta Code task &nbsp; Totient function'''. &nbsp; &nbsp; -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 23:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)