Talk:Happy numbers: Difference between revisions

Talk:Happy numbers (view source)

Revision as of 07:22, 7 May 2009

8 bytes removed , 15 years ago

→‎On caching (and laziness): slight fix: It's not really the first part, because you don't actually do it; but it can still be seen as "half" of the step, so the argument remains

Ce

973

edits

Revision as of 07:20, 7 May 2009 (view source) Ce (talk \| contribs) (→‎On caching (and laziness): No caching is needed (and I don't believe the described optimized cache saves much)) ← Older edit		Revision as of 07:22, 7 May 2009 (view source) Ce (talk \| contribs) (→‎On caching (and laziness): slight fix: It's not really the first part, because you don't actually do it; but it can still be seen as "half" of the step, so the argument remains) Newer edit →
Line 3: : You don't need ''any'' caching (see the alternative C++ version I've just added). Of course you'll do more calculations anyway, so this is still a time/space tradeof. : Also note that your "normal form" is ~~the first part~~"half" of the iteration step. Of course your cache is more effective if you also add the second step (because, after all, numbers which have a different normal form may still have the same next number (e.g. both 1111 and 2 have 4 as next value). But that's the same as using the original cache, but not caching in the first iteration. So the savings with your optimized cache are probably negligible. --[[User:Ce\|Ce]] 07:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)