4 ms·
The two methods are exactly - exactly - the same. Just different ways of phrasing. Don't fool yourself.
by htfu 7y ago
The two methods are exactly - exactly - the same. Just different ways of phrasing.
Don't fool yourself.
- bumbledraven 7y agoThe standard method and mine give the same result, and I believe that mine is simpler to carry out in your head. In what way do you believe that I am fooling myself?
- stinos 7y agoNot so much as fooling yourself, but I agree with the OP your method isnt really 'original' in the sense that it's indeed exactly the same as the 'standard' one, just a tad different in how you explain the math. E.g. 'if not ending in 00 throw away...' is really just the same thing as 'except when divisable by 100'.
- jolmg 7y agoTo add to your comment, being divisable by 400 is also the same thing as throwing away the 00 and checking the remaining is divisable by 4. One explanation is just a rephrasing of the other for the exact same method.
- firethief 7y agoIt's algebraically equivalent, but it's not the same procedure. The insight in Bumbledraven's Algorithm is that by factoring out an unconditionally-performed mod-4 step, the problem can be reduced to two cases.