Anonymous user
Talk:Sexy primes: Difference between revisions
→possible errors in most programs: added some comments.
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) m (reduce stuttering) |
(→possible errors in most programs: added some comments.) |
||
Line 19:
::: Did I not address your query "'''should 97 be listed as the 1st half of a sexy prime pair?'''" in my second and third statements? In what way could I have made it clearer?
:::: Yes, you addressed my query, To use your words, ... in part, ''at least''. At that point, there was no way to confirm if any programming entry handled the case of a ''straddled'' sexy prime pair (except for the REXX entry), so therefore, there wasn't any way for me to verify (other than running the programs myself) if the other programs were correct, as their outputs didn't reflect whether or not sexy primes were being counted correctly for ''straddled'' sexy pair primes (since at time, none of the task's requirements encountered a straddled sexy prime pair). I choose to instead, open a new talk section addressing this issue (and have since regretted it, for the obvious reasons, ··· no good turn goes unpunished ··· or unharangued). Any-a-whose, trodding on ... At that time, you ''would rather make ...'' changes to the requirements, but you had not yet done so, so it appeared to me that you didn't want to address this issue directly or at that time. That issue is now moot as the updated task requirements have included a straddled sexy prime pair, so I am assuming that you changed the task's requirements to ensure/verify their correctness (program logic) regarding this issue. I am now regretting even bringing up the problem, the next time I just may let sleeping dogs lie. All this for merely exposing a potential/possible problem, which apparently, as it turns out, there was a problem. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 00:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
::: "'''Listing the sexy primes under 100 would've been a simpler way.'''" In what way? Each relevant count is already required to be displayed. It ''was'' ambiguous about the splitting of pairs (which I clarified). I suppose there could be some confusion over whether the threshold value should be included or not, but I purposely chose a value where it didn't matter (because I wanted to test for other constraints). There is little else that is open to interpretation. If you are unable to tell that the count your entry outputs is different from all other entries, I think there are larger problems.
:::: It would've been simpler in that all the unsexy primes (under 100) could've been listed (counts would've shown a problem, but I think most programmers would've like to know what exactly which primes were being counted incorrectly, or not being included or included incorrectly), and programmers could see then if '''97''' was or wasn't listed (as I'm assuming that would be the problematic prime). I don't know where you got the idea that I was unable to tell that my count was different from all the others. I was, obviously, able to tell the difference, as that was the main reason that I created this discussion page section entry. My entry's output was different from only '''one''' other entry (the one that I was referring to). At that time, mine ''only'' agreed with two other entries, with another entry which didn't list the number of unsexy primes at that time (however, the count has since been added). Please don't put on me that there are larger problems (supposedly because I can't tell the difference, because, it <u>must be</u> obvious that I can tell the difference, since I created this section on the discussion/talk page). If you don't whether that I can or can't, then you can just ask instead of assuming that I can't (all evidence to the contrary). Rosetta Code isn't a place for ad hominem attacks (or even snide suggestions, no matter how phrased). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 00:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
::: "'''everybody's program's output has to be changed to handle the new limits'''" Seriously? I'm sorry your chosen programming language is so difficult to run. Mine took less than a minute to modify, re-run and copy-paste the new output. Really, adding an additional required test at 100 probably '''also''' would have required you to update your output, so I fail to see why that is a hardship.
::: "'''(witness that one computer program already has an incorrect count for the number of unsexy primes, but hasn't be questioned or flagged.)'''" Ok, but if it was the entry I questioned and flagged (hmmm) it wasn't incorrect for any of the things you raised issue with. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 12:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)▼
:::: Again, you're assuming that it was (or would be) a hardship. I never mentioned anything or implied that there was/is a hardship. So there is no need to fail to see why there would be a hardship ··· if there ''is'' no hardship. Sooooo, no need to be sorry for any non-hardship. Furthermore, the additional requirement that I suggested could've been added as an ''optional'' requirement, thus not necessitating a change if one didn't want to list all (three) unsexy primes below '''100'''. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 00:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
▲::: "'''(witness that one computer program already has an incorrect count for the number of unsexy primes, but hasn't be questioned or flagged.)'''" Ok, but if it was the entry I questioned and flagged (hmmm) it wasn't incorrect for any of the things you raised issue with.
--[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 12:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
:::: Since the entry that you flagged wasn't the entry that I noticed was different (and possibly thought was incorrect, but not for certain at that time), and you thought that I was talking about the entry you flagged (which it wasn't), so you're saying that it wasn't correct for the points that I raised. Well, yes, I wasn't even talking about the entry that you flagged, but another entry, so yes, we are talking about two different entries. So therefore, my points that I mentioned don't even apply to the entry you're referring to. Also, I don't know where you got the impression that it is so difficult to re-run ''my'' chosen programming language. You're again making an assumption (well, actually two assumptions). There is no reason for you to be sorry for something that isn't true. Also, I don't know why you assumed it was a hardship. That was and is not the case. So your failure to see why it was a hardship also isn't a failure, as there wasn't any hardship. Now, for the entry you questioned and flagged. Again, it was not <u>that</u> programming entry that I had noticed that appeared to be incorrect (I was waiting for more programming entries to show their output which would've hopefully clarified the issue). As it turned out, it was later changed/corrected (without it being flagged). But, you were wrong, as you assumed that it was the entry (the one that you flagged) that I was referring to, it was different entry. So I rather resent the fact that I found (as it turned out) an incorrect output, and you thought that I meant another incorrect output, and you further assumed that it wasn't for any of the reasons that I raised. Oy! -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 00:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
| |||