Talk:Hamming numbers: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary |
(→Original DrDobbs blog discussion: new section) |
||
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) |