Revision as of 00:27, 19 August 2019 (view source) Chunes (talk \| contribs) (→‎Scale back 2nd part?) ← Older edit		Revision as of 00:31, 19 August 2019 (view source) Chunes (talk \| contribs) No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 2: 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) :::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)

Talk:Pierpont primes: Difference between revisions

Talk:Pierpont primes (view source)