Talk:Euclid-Mullin sequence: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) m (→Question re Pollard's Rho: factors are not necessarily found in order) |
(Thanks to Thundergnat.) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
: I suppose it depends on the implementation, but in general, no, you shouldn't rely on the assumption that factors will be found in magnitude order. Smaller factors ''are much more likely'' to be found earlier, but you can't rely on that being the case in general. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 13:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC) |
: I suppose it depends on the implementation, but in general, no, you shouldn't rely on the assumption that factors will be found in magnitude order. Smaller factors ''are much more likely'' to be found earlier, but you can't rely on that being the case in general. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 13:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC) |
||
:: Yeah, it's a pity but I'm sure you're right that we can't rely on a simple implememtation finding factors in magnitude order, so thanks for confirming that. Much as I love PR, you're stuffed on time if there are no smallish factors as seems to be the case with the above 61 digit number. I'll try and get my 9 minute version (which avoids a second round of PR) into shape for posting. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 15:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||