User talk:Danaj: Difference between revisions
→ntheory question: Handling very large values with 'vecreduce': new section
SqrtNegInf (talk | contribs) (→Prime conspiracy: new section) |
SqrtNegInf (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 8:
[https://gist.github.com/SqrtNegInf/f3e9ef2807f225946871b385aeae6826#file-prime_conspiracy-pl Prime_conspiracy.pl]
I benchmarked, and didn't see a difference. But if you have a faster version, definitely put it on RC... --[[User:SqrtNegInf|SqrtNegInf]] ([[User talk:SqrtNegInf|talk]]) 15:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
: I commented on the gist. Would you recommend replacing the code or adding it as an alternative?
: [[User:Danaj|Danaj]] ([[User talk:Danaj|talk]]) 18:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
== ntheory question: Handling very large values with 'vecreduce' ==
Using 'ntheory', the exponential factorial is easily defined as <code>vecreduce { $b ** $a }</code> but for n=5 the result returned is 'Inf'. The straight calculation of <code>5**4**3**2</code> correctly returns a number that has 183231 digits. All this can be seen in context at
[https://github.com/SqrtNegInf/Rosettacode-Perl-Smoke/blob/master/S/Special_factorials Special factorials]. Everything else works fine. Clearly, the fate of the planet does not hang in the balance, but still it would be satisfying to get a clean result out of 'ntheory' here. Lighting the Bat-signal, as I am not clear on how to proceed, and would appreciate any thoughts you may have on the topic. --[[User:SqrtNegInf|SqrtNegInf]] ([[User talk:SqrtNegInf|talk]]) 03:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
| |||