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)

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. --Chunes (talk) 00:30, 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 wasting 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.     -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)