Anonymous user
User talk:PureFox: Difference between revisions
m
→agreeing statistics: added an Oxford comma.
(→humorous epigraph: added a comment.) |
m (→agreeing statistics: added an Oxford comma.) |
||
Line 128:
:I've rewritten it and it's now about 5 times faster than before but probably still not enough to bring the six-digit fractions within reasonable reach. Further improvements may be possible - I'll keep thinking about it. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 19:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
:: I've rewritten the REXX version twice, and each time it cut the run time in half. I can modify the '''hasDup''' function further, but it would make the program so not idiomatic, and difficult to read and/or understand. The gain would be around (maybe) 2% speed reduction, and it probably wouldn't be worth the ugliness of the code. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 21:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
:A 4 x speedup for your REXX entry is great. No such luck in my case and I think it's as quick as I can get it. However, I've just acquired a new machine which reduces the runtime for 5-digits to under 25 seconds and has enabled me to process the 6-digit case in about 15.5 minutes. Not as many 'positives' (9778) as I'd have expected so hopefully some-one else will be able to provide an independent check that the stats are correct.--[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 11:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
| |||