Talk:Untouchable numbers: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Number of untouchable numbers up to 1 million: Further results.) |
|||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
:OK, i tried sieve factors of 62 and 63. The former was one off and the latter spot on so I'm going with that. The time was exactly the same as the factor 64 version because of another change I made to use less memory. I would, of course, have preferred to use a method which didn't involve any guessing such as Nigel's but the timing difference is just too great - the current Go program with a limit of 100,000 and a sieve factor of 14 takes only 6.2 seconds to run and is very easy to understand. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 16:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC) |
:OK, i tried sieve factors of 62 and 63. The former was one off and the latter spot on so I'm going with that. The time was exactly the same as the factor 64 version because of another change I made to use less memory. I would, of course, have preferred to use a method which didn't involve any guessing such as Nigel's but the timing difference is just too great - the current Go program with a limit of 100,000 and a sieve factor of 14 takes only 6.2 seconds to run and is very easy to understand. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 16:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC) |
||
== Number of untouchable numbers up to 2 million == |
|||
I've calculated 2 million as 305290. As Adrian Monk puts it "I could be wrong, but I never am."--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 13:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC) |
|||
==Nice recursive solution== |
==Nice recursive solution== |
||