Talk:Pierpont primes: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) (maybe too aggressive?) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Scale back 2nd part? == |
== 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? --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 23:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC) |
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? --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Chunes|Chunes]] ([[User talk:Chunes|talk]]) 00:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||