Talk:N-smooth numbers: Difference between revisions

 

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