Anonymous user
Talk:Primes - allocate descendants to their ancestors: Difference between revisions
Talk:Primes - allocate descendants to their ancestors (view source)
Revision as of 17:02, 18 May 2015
, 9 years agoUndo revision 201576 by Old man (talk)
| (13 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 9:
--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 17:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:Hi,
# 'The list layout' showed a partial
# Yes, the output is too big to be posted (5.079 KB), that's why, I give the total of all descendants.
# I did put some time comparisons, because I was so surprised, from a few seconds in C to almost 10 minutes required by the "Visual Basic .NET with collection". This is my first 'Visual Basic .NET' program, I probably did something wrong, because the program runs in 20 seconds, now. I deleted the time comparisons.
Line 165:
Even if you exclude the number 4, all the prime factors and all the multiples of the prime factors greater than 97, that's going to be a very huge number of descendants.
- No, I don't see why you feel the task is ambiguous. The only ambiguity I can see, here, is your interpretation of the task description, because
It just requires a little common sense and common sense is biological.
Line 176:
--[[User:Old man|Old man]] ([[User talk:Old man|talk]]) 10:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
: Yeah, when I said that 20 was a descendant of 8, I was wrong. I don't remember what I was thinking there. (But that hypothesis was obviously wrong...)
: That said, I expected that if 5 were an ancestor of 8, that 8 would be a descendant of 5. And this seems to not be the case, and I do not see where in your task description you make this issue clear.
: You have made it clear in your code, and you've spent considerable time explaining to me in the comments here how I am wrong. And I appreciate that. But what I'm really looking for is an adequate task description. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 17:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- No problem, everybody can do mistakes. I don't blame you, since you agree with me that 1 number can have 0 or 1 direct ancestor.
- It is specified. I gave the greatest number 3<sup>33</sup>. 3<sup>33</sup> is a direct descendant of 99.
But I'm good prince, I concede it, for more clarity and for newbies. I replace "all descendants" by "direct descendants".
The code didn't change that much since the original post. I'm surpise that you suddenly see it clearer.
But, ok, it's a good start.
- Considerable time ? No. I spend a few minutes between 2 supports, only, when I have some spare time.
I think you surely spend more time, trying to find flaws, than what I spend to teach you.
It is very relaxing to teach others.
--[[User:Old man|Old man]] ([[User talk:Old man|talk]]) 18:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
: Actually I was trying to find the definitions of your terms - I'd rather work forward from the definitions than reverse engineer your code. What you see as me trying to find flaws was, from my point of view, an attempt to piece together a set of definitions which would satisfy you and be consistent with my understanding of the words. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 19:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Could you be more specific ?
--[[User:Old man|Old man]] ([[User talk:Old man|talk]]) 11:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
See [[Primes_-_allocate_descendants_to_their_ancestors#Definition_of_terms]] for my current understanding. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 19:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
==Parent-Child relationship==
Hi again "Old man". I thought I would note something that confuses me when reading your task descrition: The parent-child relationship seems the other way around to me?
When you state:
<pre>46 = 2*23 --> 2+23 = 25, is the parent of 46.</pre>
I see 25 being derived ''from'' 46. Normally I think of the child being derived from the parent but you have the derived-from relationship going the other way?<br>
--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 17:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I do note that after pondering #thedress, the answer might well be "blue and black"
:Hi,
:I see what you mean, but with such reasoning, humanity has absolutely no future.
:Personally, I'd prefer to discuss normality. I posted, 46 has 557 children and you'd like, 46 has 557 parents.
:I can say one thing : What an orgy!
:Why not ? LOL. Excellent! LOL.
:Thanks for this little touch of humor. This was missing.
:I didn't see the signature button, before today.
:I copied and pasted the signature from post to post, changing date and time.
:But, my signature still does not appear "blue and black", with the button.
--[[User:Old man|Old man]] ([[User talk:Old man|talk]]) 19:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
: To make your signature appear blue and black, you'll probably want to click through where it's red, and then save something on the page where you land. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 19:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
| |||