Anonymous user
Talk:Hamming numbers: Difference between revisions
Could be a trivial fencepost error
(Could be a trivial fencepost error) |
|||
Line 7:
: Originally I had the 1691. Tcl had 1690 so I stored all values in an array and found that 1690 was correct. Since I have checked twice, I have reverted your edit, but please check again (as I will tonight). --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 09:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
:: I still believe my original remark was correct. I am not going to re-revert. I changed my Scheme program to show some extra output. Maybe some people that submitted other implementations can also check this. We actually do agree on the value of the hamming(1690). It's just that this is not the last one before 2^31. Maybe there is something wrong with my implementation. At least we agree on the first 20 :). --[[User:Dsnouck|Dsnouck]] 09:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
::: FWIW, calculating with the Tcl impl...<pre>
:::hamming{1690} = 2123366400
:::hamming{1691} = 2125764000
:::hamming{1692} = 2147483648
:::hamming{1693} = 2149908480
:::</pre>My only concern is whether I had an off-by-one error from counting indices from zero or one (i.e., is it ''H''<sub>0</sub> or ''H''<sub>1</sub> that is 1? My impl assumes it is ''H''<sub>1</sub>...) –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 10:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
| |||