Anonymous user
Talk:Sequence: smallest number greater than previous term with exactly n divisors: Difference between revisions
Talk:Sequence: smallest number greater than previous term with exactly n divisors (view source)
Revision as of 05:35, 10 April 2019
, 5 years ago→output for F#: added a un-vaguerish comment.
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) (→output for F#: Not sure where "Anti-primes plus" came from) |
m (→output for F#: added a un-vaguerish comment.) |
||
Line 19:
::: For what it's worth, the term "The Anti-primes plus sequence" doesn't seem to exist anywhere on the web except here, so I wouldn't get to hung up on what is '''the''' correct sequence. The task description is extremely vague. Most people seemed to interpret it as [[oeis:A069654|OEIS: A069654]], but [[oeis:A005179|OEIS: A005179]] is also a valid sequence that fits the description. I also included two other "sequences" in the Perl 6 entry that technically satisfy the requirements. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 00:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
:::: Since this is still a ''draft task'', do you think that the task definition/requirement should be tightened up (and/or refined as to make it ''un-vague'') so that all computer programming solutions/entries are solving the same task? The main purpose of Rosetta Code (I think) is to compare programs, but if some programs are solving a different requirement than the others, it's impossible to compare algorithms. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 05:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
| |||