Talk:Pierpont primes: Difference between revisions
Some observations
(→Scale back 2nd part?: added some comments and musings.) |
(Some observations) |
||
Line 7:
:::: 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)
== Final Digits ==
Looking at the results, I see that there appear to be no Pierpont primes of the second kind ending with 9, but 9 is a relatively common final digit of the Pierpont numbers of the first kind. The distribution of the other possible final digits also appears to differ between them.
Maybe showing the numbers of each possible final digit would be interesting. Also, the First kind are clearly more frequent than the second kind. --[[User:Tigerofdarkness|Tigerofdarkness]] ([[User talk:Tigerofdarkness|talk]]) 09:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
| |||