Talk:Ulam numbers: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→timing for the 100,000th Ulam number: Added a comment. |
m added another talk section about Ulam timings (using REXX). |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== timings for the N<sup>th</sup> Ulam number == |
|||
Using the (new and current) REXX program, the times |
|||
It (the REXX program) is an '''O(2)''' polynomial |
|||
0.0000005168509818 N^2 - 0.0004990440614098 N + 0.5707466809128310 |
|||
|
|||
Rsquared = 0.9999999315551220 |
|||
(The above, as measured and timed on Paul Kislanko's 10-core PC. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 21:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== timing for the 100,000<sup>th</sup> Ulam number == |
== timing for the 100,000<sup>th</sup> Ulam number == |
||
Revision as of 21:38, 4 December 2020
timings for the Nth Ulam number
Using the (new and current) REXX program, the times
It (the REXX program) is an O(2) polynomial
0.0000005168509818 N^2 - 0.0004990440614098 N + 0.5707466809128310 Rsquared = 0.9999999315551220
(The above, as measured and timed on Paul Kislanko's 10-core PC. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
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.