Talk:Multi-base primes: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→inadequate range checking?: nah, it's ok.) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== inadequate range checking? == |
== inadequate range checking? == |
||
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. After translating the Rust entry, I am a bit concerned it is skipping a few things it should perhaps not. |
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. After translating the Rust entry, I am a bit concerned it is skipping a few things it should perhaps not. |
||
Who's to say, for instance, that "ABCDEF" won't be prime in 36-16=20 bases? My translation, at least, is not checking that. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 12:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC) |
Who's to say, for instance, that "ABCDEF" won't be prime in 36-16=20 bases? My translation, at least, is not checking that. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 12:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)<br> |
||
Nevermind, I changed the Phix entry to do a full sweep, at initially quite some hit to performance, but thankfully finding a "maxdigit" optimisation, and all the answers happen to have only decimal digits 0..9. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 17:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:17, 3 July 2021
inadequate range checking?
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. After translating the Rust entry, I am a bit concerned it is skipping a few things it should perhaps not.
Who's to say, for instance, that "ABCDEF" won't be prime in 36-16=20 bases? My translation, at least, is not checking that. --Pete Lomax (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Nevermind, I changed the Phix entry to do a full sweep, at initially quite some hit to performance, but thankfully finding a "maxdigit" optimisation, and all the answers happen to have only decimal digits 0..9. --Pete Lomax (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)