Talk:Prime conspiracy: Difference between revisions

Line 1:

===numbers in the example for the task===

~~Nevermind~~, I found the problem   (had to do with the calculation of the upper bound for the sieve).   -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 23:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Line 8:

Line 7:

For 10000 primes used in this study:

and took 0.11 seconds.

H= 80000

prime 10001 is: 84327

Line 35:

Line 33:

</strike>

⚫

Never mind, I found the problem   (had to do with the calculation of the upper bound for the sieve).   I did think it strange that my calculations for 1,000,000 primes was correct, but not for 10,000. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 23:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

-----

I get a different result. Also, prime 10001 is 104759. Prime 8220 is 84327. Prime 0 is 2. So that's probably your issue. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 22:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

: The REXX language (usually) starts out an index with unity, not zero.   -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 23:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Pascal results also match the numbers given in the example.