Talk:Ulam numbers: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(added a new talk section.) |
(→timing for the 100,000th Ulam number: Added a comment.) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The total time for the 100,000<sup>th</sup> Ulam number using the original REXX program would've taken a little over three years, and that is on Paul Kislanko's PC. On my old slow PC, it would've taken about a decade or thereabouts. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 21:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC) |
The total time for the 100,000<sup>th</sup> Ulam number using the original REXX program would've taken a little over three years, and that is on Paul Kislanko's PC. On my old slow PC, it would've taken about a decade or thereabouts. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 21:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
:It certainly demonstrates the importance of using a decent algorithm. |
|||
:I was quite pleased with my first version but it's been trumped twice now by the Phix and XPL0 algorithms! --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 21:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 21:36, 4 December 2020
timing for the 100,000th Ulam number
The total time for the 100,000th Ulam number using the original REXX program would've taken a little over three years, and that is on Paul Kislanko's PC. On my old slow PC, it would've taken about a decade or thereabouts. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- It certainly demonstrates the importance of using a decent algorithm.