Talk:Cuban primes: Difference between revisions

From Rosetta Code
Content added Content deleted
m (phooey)
m (→‎Why so large?: add missing signature for first comment (retrieved from history))
Line 2: Line 2:
== Why so large? ==
== Why so large? ==
I don't know why to choose such a big number "show the 100,000th cuban prime."
I don't know why to choose such a big number "show the 100,000th cuban prime."
It take me above 2min runtime. the 6635th cuban prime 4293894169 is the last < 2^32.
It take me above 2min runtime. the 6635th cuban prime 4293894169 is the last < 2^32. --[[User:Horst.h|Horst.h]] ([[User talk:Horst.h|talk]]) 11:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


:My theory is that Gerard lives in the upper midwest of the US and is trying to heat his house with his processor. 🤔 --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 13:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
:My theory is that Gerard lives in the upper midwest of the US and is trying to heat his house with his processor. 🤔 --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 13:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:43, 1 February 2019

Why so large?

I don't know why to choose such a big number "show the 100,000th cuban prime." It take me above 2min runtime. the 6635th cuban prime 4293894169 is the last < 2^32. --Horst.h (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

My theory is that Gerard lives in the upper midwest of the US and is trying to heat his house with his processor. 🤔 --Thundergnat (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
That specific number was the only cuban prime of any substance that could be verified as being correct.   If anyone had a reputable web page that has a reference to a smaller number, I would've used that instead.   So Thundergnat's theory falls flat.     -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Darn! :-) --Thundergnat (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)