Talk:Count in factors: Difference between revisions
(→stating that 1 is prime: added clarification why Python was re-flagged. -- ~~~~) |
(→stating that 1 is prime: None composite.) |
||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
I marked Python as ''partly incorrect'' (which was later rescinded) that Python marked '''1''' as a prime, not that '''1''' was included in the listing (with '''1''' as a factor). It was the ''marking'' of '''1''' as a prime that was indicated as (partly) incorrect. Other than that, the factors of the integers listed were correct. Nowhere did I indicate that '''1''' shouldn't be in the list. I don't know any other method of flagging an entry to address this situation of ancillary output being incorrect. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC) |
I marked Python as ''partly incorrect'' (which was later rescinded) that Python marked '''1''' as a prime, not that '''1''' was included in the listing (with '''1''' as a factor). It was the ''marking'' of '''1''' as a prime that was indicated as (partly) incorrect. Other than that, the factors of the integers listed were correct. Nowhere did I indicate that '''1''' shouldn't be in the list. I don't know any other method of flagging an entry to address this situation of ancillary output being incorrect. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC) |
||
:I've changed it. 1 is "not composite" but that would mess with the formatting. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 21:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:07, 27 October 2013
It'd be best to include the "factor" function, and note where it came from. --Michael Mol 21:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Draft/Non-draft
While I don't see any problems, or have any complaints with peoples' implementations, I want to hold off until Jan 1st before un-drafting; there are a few languages and participants I usually see, but I don't see their solutions yet. --Michael Mol 18:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- What can I say? Christmas is when good food and drink take precedence over coding… –Donal Fellows 21:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm not complaining! Enjoy the holidays! :) --Michael Mol 21:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps rather than having a special rule for 1, the count should start from 2? --Rdm 19:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- It'd make it neater, algorithmically, but then it defies the simplistic concept of counting. I could rationalize, too, that having the troublesome case of -is-not-prime, is normal for the problem at hand, and helps expose workarounds and idiomatic approaches for special cases. Really, though, it comes down to the fact that when I count to ten, I start at one. --Michael Mol 20:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, well.. technically speaking, the list of prime factors for 1 is the empty list. But I suppose representing that might look odd to some people. --Rdm 23:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
duplicate task?
What's different to just calling Prime decomposition in a loop? Is this really worth a separate task? --Oenone 09:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a duplicate, because it's an extension of the behavior of another task, and serves its own purpose (that of showing the factors of a sequence of numbers) --Michael Mol 12:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
phantom categories - incorrect use of Library templates
I found this looking into category cleanup. Library templates (D, Ruby) for modules by name Prime, UIprime create categories. I would expect the library template would address the name of a general library and then reference a specific member. This usage is creating clutter all over RC.
- Knowledgeable Ruby and D users - help please.
--Dgamey 11:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- (With Ruby) 'prime' is a library, and its members are Prime, Prime#prime_division, Integer#prime_division, Prime::Generator23 and so on. The 'prime' library is part of the standard library. I am not wanting phantom categories for libraries of the standard library ('prime', 'optparse', 'strscan', 'find', 'securerandom' and so on), so I am removing them. --Kernigh 16:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
stating that 1 is prime
I marked Python as partly incorrect (which was later rescinded) that Python marked 1 as a prime, not that 1 was included in the listing (with 1 as a factor). It was the marking of 1 as a prime that was indicated as (partly) incorrect. Other than that, the factors of the integers listed were correct. Nowhere did I indicate that 1 shouldn't be in the list. I don't know any other method of flagging an entry to address this situation of ancillary output being incorrect. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)