Talk:Addition-chain exponentiation: Difference between revisions

 
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 198:
::The task as it is right now is too complex for RC. However, addition chains are IMO perfectly fit to RC. Choose lower bounds and it's easily feasible. However, if you choose lower bounds, it is known that star chains are optimal (but it is known by comparison to an optimal algorithm, not by an independant proof, AFAIK). The lowest N for which they fail to be optimal is greater than 10000, far above what is reasonably feasible with a simple backtracking algorithm. Therefore, if lower bounds are chosen, you may as well give the possibility to use star chains. So far, I have not had much time to write a new task for this (I have never written a task on RC yet, by the way).
::[[User:Arbautjc|Arbautjc]] ([[User talk:Arbautjc|talk]]) 15:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 
As is, this page should be deleted. It is an exercise of the mind until shown that it has significance in daily computing.
 
In general, one should be able to find existing open source code as a working example that passes a test, such as from Perl's cpan for example. If this page is to be kept, the esoteric math symbols and terms should be translated.
[[User:tekbasse] ([[User talk:tekbasse|talk]]) 5:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
:Ridiculous. Is there a rule requiring that Rosetta Code tasks be useful in daily computing? Of course not. Esoteric math symbols? Maybe you think computer science has nothing to do with math. But this is also blatantly wrong. This problem has been the subject of several research articles, and good algorithms exist, period. That you may be unable to implement them is nobody's concern. There are other more or less difficult algorithms on RC, and I have no problem with that. RC is not limited to "Hello World" and "How do I write a for loop?", thankfully. [[User:Eoraptor|Eoraptor]] ([[User talk:Eoraptor|talk]]) 21:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 
== Fast algorithm ==
1,336

edits