Talk:Iterated digits squaring: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Talk:Iterated digits squaring (view source)

Revision as of 03:04, 14 September 2015

3,429 bytes added , 8 years ago

→‎Dup?: added a comment.

Anonymous user

rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger

Revision as of 19:21, 16 September 2014 (view source) rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger (→‎OK this is what I've done: added comments about adding a draft task template.) ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 03:04, 14 September 2015 (view source) rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger (→‎Dup?: added a comment.)
(10 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 73: I have created a new task [[Combinations with repetitions/Square Digit Chain]] into which I think the Combinatoric solutions fit better. Note that [[Combinations with repetitions]] has 2 methods in D. I found the J solution interesting, and there are probably other non-comb things to be said in this task. Gerard Schildberger returned this task to draft on 26th., August without saying why, I added the explanation of the Combinatorics and made it a task again. I've now returned it to draft pending a clearer description of what goes here.--[[User:Nigel Galloway\|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway\|talk]]) 11:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC) : What I saw at the time of the my updating the REXX section was that this Rosetta Code entry didn't appear to be a task (or any type of task) at all (as I didn't see any TASK or DRAFT TASK statement ~~ ~~ with the   <nowiki> {{ xxx }} </nowiki>   braces around anything)   at the beginning of the Rosetta Code ... er, "task".   So, as my summary comment said, I '''added''' the draft task template (as there appeared to not be any template at all, task nor draft task).   I certainly didn't intend to promote or demote any ... thingy/task.   I'm sorry for the retrograde revision, it was not my intent to revert any task back to draft status, my intent was to just provide a template ('''draft''' seemed safer to add) where there appeared to be none at all.   It was this (apparent) lack of any template that prompted me to add a draft-task template.   Perhaps it was a stale version that I was viewing;   this wouldn't be the first time a global edit change was processed or presented incorrectly.   I again apologize for any misdeed occurring on my behalf of my good intentions, albeit done incorrectly or by happenstance. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 19:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC) I downloaded a D compiler and produced my first program in D here [[Combinations with repetitions/Square Digit Chain]]. It uses the combRep procedure defined here [[Combinations with repetitions]]. I suggest this shows that the cobanatronics in this task is a duplication of work already produced in [[Combinations with repetitions]]. I would like to change the task description to require a function which when given a number returns true or false indicating that that number translates to 1 or not according to the rules for square digit number chaining, and to demonstrate the function by counting the number which translate to 1 upto the Project Euler #92 limit of 10**7. No special coding being required for speed, de-emphasizing the timing and emphasizing that a large n in the chain rapidly becomes a small n, but a small n may become a slightly larger n for a time.--[[User:Nigel Galloway\|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway\|talk]]) 11:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC) ==ProjectEuler92== The carefully worded PE challenge says that the sequence "attains" rather than "ends with" 1 or 89. ----- Also,   ''Project Euler 92''   requested: :: <big> How many starting numbers '''below''' ten million will arrive at 89? </big> (Bold lettering added by me). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 00:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC) == Dup? == While the example results asked for in this task are different, this task seems quite similar to [[Happy_numbers\|Happy numbers]]. This suggests one of several possible approaches: # Merge the tasks # Cross reference the tasks # Create a category for the tasks # Pretend it didn't happen # Pretend it did happen, but do nothing anyway. I'm not sure which of these we should choose... --[[User:Rdm\|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm\|talk]]) : I don't think merging the tasks will simplify anything.   Especially at this late date for two bona fide, full-fledged Rosetta Code tasks.   Creating a category for the tasks, I think, would be nice.   You could add a 5<sup>th</sup> option:   Pretend it did happen, but do nothing anyway.   -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 23:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC) :: Added. --[[User:Rdm\|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm\|talk]]) 23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC) : Since   '''happy numbers'''   have their own name and are referenced in/on publications and other web-sites, they deserve their own algorithms (without generalizing them).   Similar to primes, K-primes, almost-primes, pseudo-primes, phi (totient), divisors (tau), proper divisors (aliquot), and the like;   they are both generalizations of   ''factoring''.   Similarly with factorials and multi-factorials, and the many variants of Fibonacci series (the Lucas series being one of them).   -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 23:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC) :: Ok, but I do not understand what factoring has to do with sums of squares of digits... --[[User:Rdm\|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm\|talk]]) 02:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC) ::: Nothing at all.   I was generalizing about various primes and factoring, not squares of digits and factoring.   -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 03:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)