Talk:Pierpont primes: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary |
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) (→Scale back 2nd part?: comment) |
||
Line 3:
::Hm, I would guess not, since there is a brute force Go version that works quickly. The way I wrote my entry is probably slow in general or slow for my language. I saw it done with prime factorizations on OEIS and thought it looked elegant. I'll give a different method a shot when I get to it. --[[User:Chunes|Chunes]] ([[User talk:Chunes|talk]]) 00:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
:::For languages with access to a quick/robust primality test, that is. Maybe it would be prudent to scale back a bit so that simpler primality tests can get the job done. --[[User:Chunes|Chunes]] ([[User talk:Chunes|talk]]) 00:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
:::It is very likely going to be much more efficient to generate Pierpont numbers and check if they are prime than to generate primes and check if they are Pierponts. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 01:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
| |||
Revision as of 01:20, 19 August 2019
Scale back 2nd part?
Do I need to scale back the second part? (Find 250th primes). I don't want to have goals that are mostly unobtainable, If so, what would be a more reasonable number? 150th? 100th? --Thundergnat (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hm, I would guess not, since there is a brute force Go version that works quickly. The way I wrote my entry is probably slow in general or slow for my language. I saw it done with prime factorizations on OEIS and thought it looked elegant. I'll give a different method a shot when I get to it. --Chunes (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- It is very likely going to be much more efficient to generate Pierpont numbers and check if they are prime than to generate primes and check if they are Pierponts. --Thundergnat (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)