2 ms·
I haven't checked your code. My point is that this sieve is not fast, or "better" than any previous sieves. The only thing I've found interesting is that I have
by old_sound 13y ago
I haven't checked your code. My point is that this sieve is not fast, or "better" than any previous sieves. The only thing I've found interesting is that I haven't found the method in some other number theory books, like Hardy's, or on the internet, and so on.
That is, I wouldn't be surprised if there are better sieving methods out there.
- pavanky 13y agoI understand. I was just checking for my own curiosity. May be there is no literature on this because the 6k method is very widely known and seems to be quite a bit faster. There may be minor tweaks to your algorithm that can make it significantly faster. I'll let you know if I can think of anything :)
- old_sound 13y agoCool. The thing is I arrived to this method by checking some Permutation Groups for something completely tangential, but again, Number Theory is so vast this probably exists somewhere :) About speed ups, I'm happy to accept pull requests, even if you want to do it in Python. The Erlang bits are just because I wanted to play with the concepts from "chemical programming"