Talk:Eban numbers: Difference between revisions
Undo revision 283029 by Petelomax (talk)
(added a further condition for the "hundreds".) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 5:
This will allow optimizations to be used.</blockquote>
I am mildly curious as to what optimizations this refers to. Maybe I am missing something, but I am failing to see how limiting to one sextillion offers any way to optimize. Not so big a deal for the Perl 6 example as it counts the *-ban numbers up to one sextillion 3 times in less than a second (on my system). I just wonder what I am overlooking. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 21:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
: See the '''REXX''' solution (I think it has the best comments for eliminating numbers that have an '''e''' in them). At this time, I believe there are four other computer programming language solutions that use (more or less) the same algorithm.
Line 19:
: Also of note, the algorithm mentioned (above) should have the numbers pluralized, but then '''twenty''' would become '''twenties'''. and I thought the 2<sup>nd</sup> spelling would maybe confuse some people. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 23:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
::Ah. Makes sense. I went a different way with Perl 6 but I can see your point. Thanks. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 23:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
| |||