Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #5707
| From | bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming |
| Subject | Re: really? (lame question about primes) |
| Date | 2015-09-02 11:24 +0200 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <ms6f8u$umv$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <44a165dc-8447-4ae0-8695-557a7ddf00cf@googlegroups.com> <ms3peh$o5v$1@dont-email.me> <_RfFx.418341$bt.398932@fx32.am4> <ms5iql$65b$1@speranza.aioe.org> <VpsFx.514615$vz7.459274@fx07.am4> |
On 02.09.2015 03:37, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 02/09/2015 02:19, bartekltg wrote: >> On 01.09.2015 13:20, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 01/09/2015 10:01, David Brown wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>> Yes, you can factorise C by trying to multiply pairs A * B and see if >>>> they match. The trouble is, with a 600 digit number there are quite a >>>> lot of such pairs to try! >>> >>> Well, there aren't all that many really, and the OP specified two >>> 300-digit integers, so we needn't bother with lower numbers. >>> >>> There are only 9*10^299 300-digit numbers, so we need to test 81*10^598 >>> = 8.1*10^599 pairs. >> >> >> We do not need to check every _pair_, it is enough to >> test if C%A == 0 for any A, so "only" 9*10^299 iterations. > > But division is a lot more expensive than multiplication (i.e. it takes > longer to perform the tests). ...than multiplication by 10^299 numbers? No, it is not! Seriously, are you trolling? > Let me give you some hard data: > > Earlier, I posted the product of two primes. The multiplication took > 0.018 seconds. On the same computer, dividing the product by one of the > primes took 0.04 seconds - a little over twice as long. If I use iterative, methods, division will be ~log_2(number of bits) longer than multiplication. This isn't the best method. Still, for 300 lets say it is 1000 times longer. So you can use divison, it is "1000 times longer", or check for every pair of primes, that is 10^299 times longer. > So you don't actually save anything by doing C%A instead of A*B. (Also, You seriously claim that 10^299 divisions is the same as 10^598 (every pair) multiplication? Yes, you are trolling. bartekltg
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
really? (lame question about primes) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 12:07 -0700
Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-08-31 23:23 +0100
Re: really? (lame question about primes) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 01:18 -0700
Re: really? (lame question about primes) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-01 11:01 +0200
Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-01 12:20 +0100
Re: really? (lame question about primes) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-01 15:48 +0100
Re: really? (lame question about primes) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 13:26 -0700
Re: really? (lame question about primes) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-02 02:12 -0500
Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-02 08:38 +0100
Re: really? (lame question about primes) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-02 14:03 +0200
Re: really? (lame question about primes) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 13:24 -0700
Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-01 22:27 +0100
Re: really? (lame question about primes) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 15:02 -0700
Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-01 23:20 +0100
Re: really? (lame question about primes) bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 01:22 +0200
Re: really? (lame question about primes) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 17:18 -0700
Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-02 02:19 +0100
Re: really? (lame question about primes) James Dow Allen <gmail@jamesdowallen.nospam> - 2015-09-02 12:42 +0000
Re: really? (lame question about primes) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-02 14:21 +0100
Re: really? (lame question about primes) Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-09-02 17:45 +0200
Re: really? (lame question about primes) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-02 18:06 +0100
Re: really? (lame question about primes) James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-03 17:05 -0700
Re: really? (lame question about primes) bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 02:18 +0200
Re: really? (lame question about primes) Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 22:37 -0700
Re: really? (lame question about primes) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 23:49 -0700
Re: really? (lame question about primes) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 00:18 -0700
Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-04 08:25 +0100
Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-02 14:36 +0100
Re: really? (lame question about primes) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-02 16:49 +0100
Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-02 17:32 +0100
Re: really? (lame question about primes) Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-09-01 22:55 +0000
Re: really? (lame question about primes) bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 01:15 +0200
Re: really? (lame question about primes) bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 03:19 +0200
Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-02 02:37 +0100
Re: really? (lame question about primes) bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 11:24 +0200
Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-02 10:42 +0100
Re: really? (lame question about primes) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 03:01 -0700
Re: really? (lame question about primes) bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 12:28 +0200
Re: really? (lame question about primes) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-02 14:12 +0200
Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-02 13:19 +0100
Re: really? (lame question about primes) bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 14:56 +0200
Re: really? (lame question about primes) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-02 15:47 +0200
Re: really? (lame question about primes) bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 16:27 +0200
Re: really? (lame question about primes) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-02 16:37 +0200
Re: really? (lame question about primes) bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 17:01 +0200
Re: really? (lame question about primes) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 10:55 +0200
Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-03 10:05 +0100
Re: really? (lame question about primes) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 11:49 +0200
Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-03 10:54 +0100
Re: really? (lame question about primes) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 13:22 +0200
Re: really? (lame question about primes) bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 13:58 +0200
Re: really? (lame question about primes) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-02 13:34 +0100
Re: really? (lame question about primes) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-31 23:10 -0500
csiph-web