Anonymous user
Talk:Prime conspiracy: Difference between revisions
separated the current talk section, added comments to the later.
m (→numbers in the example for the task (deprecated): why no transitions of small primes with only 1 count.) |
(separated the current talk section, added comments to the later.) |
||
Line 45:
Pascal results also match the numbers given in the example.
--[[User:G.Brougnard|G.Brougnard]] ([[User talk:G.Brougnard|talk]]) 22:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
===primes ending in 2 or 5===
(The below was disunioned from the previous (deprecated) talk section.) -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
:: Ok. Of course, the Pascal result also does not show the transitions involving the prime numbers 2 and 5. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 00:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Line 55 ⟶ 62:
//not counting 2->3,3->5,5->7
IF res > 1 then</lang>
:::: I also (regarding REXX) didn't show the transitions for primes ending in '''2''' or '''5''', as the task (apparently) didn't require it (as it didn't reflect those in the example output). Since there are exactly three of those (total), it didn't seem that it should/would be beneficial just to add those particular counts to the output as they'll just appear as constants (for any list showing more than three or more prime). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
| |||