Talk:N-smooth numbers: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted
(→‎Disagreement among implementations: fixed the REXX problem.)
Line 9: Line 9:
: The output of REXX for the optional sub-task is indeed incorrect, as some of the values are not really p-smooth. One such example is 38123 = 67 * 569. -- [[User:Trizen|Trizen]] ([[User talk:Trizen|talk]]) 09:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
: The output of REXX for the optional sub-task is indeed incorrect, as some of the values are not really p-smooth. One such example is 38123 = 67 * 569. -- [[User:Trizen|Trizen]] ([[User talk:Trizen|talk]]) 09:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


:: I found the problem. &nbsp; Once the problem was found, it was so obvious. &nbsp; I don't want to go into the embarrassing details, &nbsp; but some of the simplest errors are so easy to overlook. &nbsp; What triggered the &nbsp; ''ah-ha!'' &nbsp; moment was the last line of the 1<sup>st</sup> batch of output, &nbsp; the 10<sup>th</sup> prime (and all others above that) &nbsp; were indexed incorrectly. &nbsp; But thanks for noticing the problem in the output(s). &nbsp; Also, I had also overlooked including the output for the 2<sup>nd</sup> task requirement, which was obviously missing. &nbsp; &nbsp; -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 13:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
:: I found the problem. &nbsp; Once the problem was found, it was so obvious. &nbsp; I don't want to go into the embarrassing details too much, &nbsp; but some of the simplest errors are so easy to overlook. &nbsp; What triggered the &nbsp; ''ah-ha!'' &nbsp; moment was the last line of the 1<sup>st</sup> batch of output, &nbsp; the 10<sup>th</sup> prime (and all others above that) &nbsp; were indexed incorrectly, &nbsp; the program has an internal table of the first nine primes, all higher primes are generated. &nbsp; Pesky little bug, &nbsp; ... the primes were being generated correctly, but their &nbsp; ''indices'' &nbsp; were incorrect, &nbsp; which manifested itself only when indices for primes &gt; 23 were being used. &nbsp; But many thanks for noticing the problem in the output(s). &nbsp; I'm now glad that I put the (high) requirement in. &nbsp; Without those ginormous numbers, the error might not have been detected. &nbsp; Also, I had managed to overlook including the output for the 2<sup>nd</sup> task requirement, which was obviously missing. &nbsp; Talk about the cobbler's children having no shoes. &nbsp; &nbsp; -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 13:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)