Anonymous user
Talk:Pernicious numbers: Difference between revisions
m
→Wiki link removal: added a comment about underscoring links.
m (→Wiki link removal: added a comment about underscoring links.) |
|||
(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 2:
Hi, the C solution is a bit mysterious to me. The for loop seems to "remove the zeros" if I understand correctly, but then what's so special about 2693408940 ?? How can a simple bitwise & tell if the number of 1 (which is now the length since all zeros have been removed) is prime?
A bit of explanation in the introduction of the section or in comment would be welcome--[[User:Grondilu|Grondilu]] ([[User talk:Grondilu|talk]]) 14:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
:Edit, hum after some
:OK, I understand now. I added some comments in the code. Hope it's ok.--[[User:Grondilu|Grondilu]] ([[User talk:Grondilu|talk]]) 15:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
:: Er yeah, it was pretty cryptic, and your analysis is absolutely correct. But I changed the routine again for something faster, though I did put in some comments this time. I didn't retain the "0b010011..." literal format since it's a GCC exteinsion, but if you want it back in I'm not really troubled by it. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] ([[User talk:Ledrug|talk]]) 19:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
==Wiki link removal==
Why was the Wikipedia link removed (for Pernicious number) ? -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The "hidden link" to Wiki's link within the definition of ''pernicious number'' isn't obvious unless one hovers over it and then Rosetta Code then underlines/underscores it, indicating that it's a link (either that, or my eyes are getting really bad). I can't see the harm on having an explicit link listed with the others. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
|