Talk:Pierpont primes
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)
- 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 using an isPrime BIF. Otherwise, it's just an exercise in
wastingconsuming 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. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 05:52, 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 using an isPrime BIF. Otherwise, it's just an exercise in