Anonymous user
User talk:Elibarzilay: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(→Sieve vs trial division.: Hard to determine.) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 28:
::If your algorithm is not striking out multiples of the next largest available integer, (as the wikipedia entry mentions), then it is likely to be flagged. If your algorithm has a modulo in it then it may well be flagged as well because the trial division algorithm would use modulo.
::I suggest if your code is a Sieve you add a short, prominent, note of that. (You can add or copy your explanation here to a section in the pages discussion page as a reference as well). --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 23:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
:::I can only say again that I added text very similar to the one in the Scala entry, with a reference to the same paper. I only qualified it with "some has claimed" since I'm personally not convinced by its point, and I believe that it is. But either way, it's most definitely a "sieve", due to its striking-out technique -- it just happens that only unstricken numbers are kept so a test is needed -- but it is definitely, absolutely, most positively, assuredly, reliably, and other "X-ly"s *not* a trial division algorithm, and it has nothing to do with that. (Like I said earlier, see the Racket code there, it's something completely different.)
:::In any case, since it has been contested, I'm fine with keeping the added objection instead of trying to argue that it is and risk more fighting on a topic that is ultimately not too interesting. (In contrast, for example, to the programming techniques which are RC's main focus, and the thing that I enjoyed doing in those three entries.)
::: --[[User:Elibarzilay|Elibarzilay]] ([[User talk:Elibarzilay|talk]]) 07:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
| |||