Talk:Count in factors: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Draft/Non-draft: Counting) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Perhaps rather than having a special rule for 1, the count should start from 2? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 19:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
Perhaps rather than having a special rule for 1, the count should start from 2? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 19:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
: It'd make it neater, algorithmically, but then it defies the simplistic concept of counting. I could rationalize, too, that having the troublesome case of <math>1</math>-is-not-prime, is normal for the problem at hand, and helps expose workarounds and idiomatic approaches for special cases. Really, though, it comes down to the fact that when I count to ten, I start at one. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 20:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
: It'd make it neater, algorithmically, but then it defies the simplistic concept of counting. I could rationalize, too, that having the troublesome case of <math>1</math>-is-not-prime, is normal for the problem at hand, and helps expose workarounds and idiomatic approaches for special cases. Really, though, it comes down to the fact that when I count to ten, I start at one. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 20:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
:: Ok, well.. technically speaking, the list of prime factors for 1 is the empty list. But I suppose representing that might look odd to some people. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 23:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||