Talk:Prime conspiracy: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (→numbers in the example for the task: elided part of the output that wasn't supposed to be displayed.) |
(Undo revision 223781 by Gerard Schildberger (talk)) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===numbers in the example for the task=== |
===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) |
|||
<strike> |
|||
For 10,000 primes (as shown by the example in the Rosetta Code task), my numbers (using the REXX program) don't match those shown: |
For 10,000 primes (as shown by the example in the Rosetta Code task), my numbers (using the REXX program) don't match those shown: |
||
<pre> |
<pre> |
||
For 10000 primes used in this study: |
For 10000 primes used in this study: |
||
and took 0.11 seconds. |
|||
H= 80000 |
|||
prime 10001 is: 84327 |
|||
digit 1 ──► 1 has a count of: 281, frequency of: 2.81%. |
digit 1 ──► 1 has a count of: 281, frequency of: 2.81%. |
||
Line 26: | Line 33: | ||
</pre> |
</pre> |
||
Does anyone else match either set of numbers for 10,000 primes? -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 22:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC) |
Does anyone else match either set of numbers for 10,000 primes? -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 22:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
</strike> |
|||
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) |
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) |
Revision as of 23:43, 21 March 2016
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). -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
For 10,000 primes (as shown by the example in the Rosetta Code task), my numbers (using the REXX program) don't match those shown:
For 10000 primes used in this study: and took 0.11 seconds. H= 80000 prime 10001 is: 84327 digit 1 ──► 1 has a count of: 281, frequency of: 2.81%. digit 1 ──► 3 has a count of: 1094, frequency of: 10.94%. digit 1 ──► 7 has a count of: 697, frequency of: 6.97%. digit 1 ──► 9 has a count of: 308, frequency of: 3.08%. digit 3 ──► 1 has a count of: 417, frequency of: 4.17%. digit 3 ──► 3 has a count of: 236, frequency of: 2.36%. digit 3 ──► 7 has a count of: 588, frequency of: 5.88%. digit 3 ──► 9 has a count of: 719, frequency of: 7.19%. digit 7 ──► 1 has a count of: 512, frequency of: 5.12%. digit 7 ──► 3 has a count of: 578, frequency of: 5.78%. digit 7 ──► 7 has a count of: 254, frequency of: 2.54%. digit 7 ──► 9 has a count of: 1059, frequency of: 10.59%. digit 9 ──► 1 has a count of: 1170, frequency of: 11.70%. digit 9 ──► 3 has a count of: 485, frequency of: 4.85%. digit 9 ──► 7 has a count of: 431, frequency of: 4.31%. digit 9 ──► 9 has a count of: 302, frequency of: 3.02%.
Does anyone else match either set of numbers for 10,000 primes? -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 22:32, 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. --Rdm (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Pascal results also match the numbers given in the example. --G.Brougnard (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)