Talk:Substring primes: Difference between revisions
→limit
(→limit) |
(→limit) |
||
Line 25:
::::::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 Maybe the output was correct but the code was out of date - I have not seen any REXX version that could ever have possibly output a count of 14.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)
::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)
:::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)
| |||