Talk:Hamming numbers: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted
No edit summary
Line 69: Line 69:


Removed all the coefficients stuff (values of i, j, and k are not needed), and updated code to not save the entire list of one million Hamming numbers so it could be run with the client VM. --[[User:Paul.miner|Paul.miner]] 23:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Removed all the coefficients stuff (values of i, j, and k are not needed), and updated code to not save the entire list of one million Hamming numbers so it could be run with the client VM. --[[User:Paul.miner|Paul.miner]] 23:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

== Original DrDobbs blog discussion ==

Just for the record, I would like to reclaim authorship of that snippet of pseudocode from the DDJ discussion back then, quoted in the Python section that apparently started this whole page. :) No consequences other than to state it here for the record - that link is broken now, gone dead after DDJ moved their blog system to some "new implementation with new and exciting features" which included losing all the old contents apparently.

Two interesting related observations. One, very minor, I can now explain the spaces in <code>x2=2*h[ i ];</code> in the quoted pseudo-code: the old blog system at DDJ would interpret [i] ... [/i] as markers for ''italics''. Another - for me, somewhat major - is that while I came out with that pseudo-code trying to translate from the classic ''Haskell'' merging-the-mappings code back into something C-like in my mind, as it turns out, it is in ''almost exact verbatim correspondence'' with the original Edsger Dijkstra's code in his book (IIRC), which I stumbled upon much later, by chance. (I had a link to it somewhere, will add later.) Amazing how it came back in an almost exact loop, this idea, back to where it started - "to Haskell and back!". Interesting... :) [[User:WillNess|WillNess]] 21:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)