Anonymous user
Talk:Truncatable primes: Difference between revisions
→redefinition of truncatable primes: More of my guff :-)
(→redefinition of truncatable primes: added commentary on other sequences that assume base ten. -- ~~~~) |
(→redefinition of truncatable primes: More of my guff :-)) |
||
Line 60:
<br><br>I've written a handy-dandy, slicer-dicer, one-size-fits-all, all-in-one general purpose calculator (in REXX) that has all those functions and more, around 1,500 functions). A lot of the Rosetta Code tasks that have REXX solutions were ripped out of that program, dumbed down, much (if not all) error checking removed, and generally, put on a severe diet before posting to RC. I wish Rosetta Code had the space for it. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 23:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
:Hi again Gerard, my point wasn't that truncatable primes could not be done in other bases, just that, in the lack of any base mentioned in the task description then a base of ten is meant and has been understood by all the example writers for this task (including yourself). Mentioning base 10 as I have now done might not help someone new to the concept and might distract them from what is needed to understand the task. Do you think mentioning base 10 is ''necessary''?
:Maybe because you have or are considering a solution in other bases, this is driving your request? I am questioning it as I would like to understand if I have dumbed the task down too much and truly missed a salient point or if not mentioning the base was enough and maybe more clear for the purposes of the task (not involving bases other than ten). I wish others would add their opinions too :-)<br>--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 06:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
| |||