Anonymous user
Talk:Prime conspiracy: Difference between revisions
→numbers in the example for the task: added some followup, elided a timing output.
(Undo revision 223781 by Gerard Schildberger (talk)) |
(→numbers in the example for the task: added some followup, elided a timing output.) |
||
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)▼
<strike>
Line 8 ⟶ 7:
For 10000 primes used in this study:
H= 80000
prime 10001 is: 84327
Line 35 ⟶ 33:
</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)
: 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.
| |||