Anonymous user
Talk:Pierpont primes: Difference between revisions
→Scale back 2nd part?: added some comments and musings.
(→Scale back 2nd part?: added a comment.) |
(→Scale back 2nd part?: added some comments and musings.) |
||
Line 6:
:::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)
:::: Essentially, this isn't going to help comparing (one of Rosetta Code's objectives) computer programming code, in this case, to find/display ginormous (Pierpont) primes, --- unless one has a robust '''isPrime''' function (mostly likely a BIF). There is nothing to learn about <u>using</u> an '''isPrime''' BIF. Otherwise, it's just an exercise in <strike>wasting</strike> consuming electric power. Interpretive computer programming languages will have a large/largish obstacle to overcome with a brute force approach. This shouldn't be the hurdle to jump over, just because interpretive languages have that handicap. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 05:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
| |||