Anonymous user
Talk:Substring primes: Difference between revisions
m
→limit: civility ...
(→limit) |
m (→limit: civility ...) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 5:
: It's a smaller list, it includes substrings that are not truncatable. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 15:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
: See the OEIS entry: [http://oeis.org/A024770 A024770 right-truncatable primes].
: See the OEIS entry: [http://oeis.org/A024785 A024785 left-truncatable primes].
: See the OEIS entry: [http://oeis.org/A085823 A085823 numbers in which all substrings are primes].
If I create a set of primes less than 500 then filter such that for each member n the set contains n%10 shall I have completed this task with no prime tests?--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 15:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
: There seems to be a disagreement concerning what ''is'' a primality test, so I will defer an opinion. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 16:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
: Nice try, but I think "the set contains" is itself a primality test, no? And is generating those 95 primes itself 500 primality tests? Admittedly that is slightly flawed logic since they would probably be quietly generated somewhere anyway. Also bear in mind this all started when I tried to find solutions > 373 when there aren't any... I have no problem with you or anyone else improving this task, although I stand by my claim that a limit of 500 is at best "misleading". --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 17:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
== limit ==
Line 24 ⟶ 30:
::::::OK, when I said "The REXX entry blatently lies", I meant no personal attack, I am sure you made an honest mistake. Despite my very best intentions, my own documentation (and program source and RC entries) almost certainly contain dozens of "blatent lies", a term I apply liberally to my own work, and should refrain from applying to that of others. But it is worrying when the output shown is wrong, as you have just done again on [[Palindromic primes]].<br> Maybe the output was correct but the code was out of date - I have not seen any REXX version that could ever have possibly output a count of 14. <br> Sorry, but I am completely dumbstruck by your inability to comprehend new vs. modified task, and cannot say anything that would make that any clearer. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 13:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
::::::: Your statement of:
''In other words how is (no task -> task) actually any different to (task -> modified task), really?''
::::::: is the quote that I was referring to. Whether you are dumbstruck or not, isn't the question. I did and still do not understand why you think that I don't have the ability to comprehend the difference, as I don't feel I should have to enumerate the differences just to answer a nonsensical question, but that isn't germane. If you can't explain what you meant in that context, and repeating the same text doesn't explain anything. Your assumption about my understanding is faulty. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 22:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
::::::::That just made things even worse. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 17:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
::I object to removing the limit. It invalidates my FreeBASIC solution which, despite being cheeky, illustrates an entirely different approach to the problem; one that does not involve converting to and from strings. [[User:Thebigh|Thebigh]] ([[User talk:Thebigh|talk]]) 15:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
:::: Yes, exactly. Removing the limit also invalidated my REXX solution (as well as others), which uses a filtering method instead of a completely different algorithm to generate and validate the possible substring primes. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 23:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
::::: No it did not. Why do you insist it did? --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 17:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
:::As I said above, it does not invalidate it in any way. Should a limit of 500 be used it ''will'' still find them all. But if the task says find those under 500, it implies there are more, when in fact there aren't. Still want the limit back? See my suggestion of 13:34 or perhaps if you like you can add "You may be relieved to hear that all such primes are below 500, if that helps." --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 15:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
:::: Pete: you posted in a recent edit summary:
''(Against my better judgement, but I've had enough of this nonsense, and''
''since some people are too weak-minded and lily-livered to do it themselves....)''
:::: Ah!! Nothing like spurious name-calling to make Rosetta Code a more friendlier place and make people feel welcome. At least, that's what I read on some Rosetta Code brochure or somewhere. But seriously, someone needs to take a chill pill. It's pretty hard to take those words back (or even to try to delete them). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 18:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
| |||