Talk:Klarner-Rado sequence: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Responded to Nigel. |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 4:
:Your figure of 52,102,239 is the 963,815th element. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 12:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
:The other samples that go to the millionth element also show it as 54,381,285. --[[User:Tigerofdarkness|Tigerofdarkness]] ([[User talk:Tigerofdarkness|talk]]) 13:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
:My suspicion (though I haven't confirmed it) is that you are accumulating the x2 and x3 terms off of the same indexer so, when you reach 1e6th, you have excess x3 elements and a shortage of x2. The reason the earlier figures match is you have accumulated enough terms past it to have filled in any "gaps". I have also failed to find a 3rd party trusted source, but we now have at least 6 different implementations by at least 4 different authors that all agree on 54,381,285. Still not authoritative but circumstantial evidence is getting pretty convincing. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 15:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
::Nothing so exciting, it just need 64bit integers.--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 11:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
BTW, I just used a "bit-vector" as suggested by the Julia sample and it would seem that you need around 1.1 billion bits (137 500 000 bytes) to find the 10 millionth element, which I think is 1,031,926,801.
<br>
The final element below 1.1 billion is element 10,543,878 which appears to be 1,099,640,002. --[[User:Tigerofdarkness|Tigerofdarkness]] ([[User talk:Tigerofdarkness|talk]]) 13:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
| |||