Talk:Ulam numbers: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted
(added a new talk section.)
 
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. &nbsp; &nbsp; On my old slow PC, &nbsp; it would've taken about a decade or thereabouts. &nbsp; &nbsp; -- [[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. &nbsp; &nbsp; On my old slow PC, &nbsp; it would've taken about a decade or thereabouts. &nbsp; &nbsp; -- [[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)