Talk:Cuban primes: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) m (→Why so large?: add missing signature for first comment (retrieved from history)) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
::: Darn! :-) --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 14:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC) |
::: Darn! :-) --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 14:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
== Python not correct == |
|||
For instance, output includes 91.--[[User:Steenslag|Steenslag]] ([[User talk:Steenslag|talk]]) 14:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 14:05, 9 June 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)
Python not correct
For instance, output includes 91.--Steenslag (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)