Re: Removing White Space...
From: Larry Serflaten (serflaten_at_usinternet.com)
Date: 04/10/04
- Next message: J French: "Re: Removing White Space..."
- Previous message: Kevin Myers: "Display Large Graphic Images"
- In reply to: Tony Proctor: "Re: Removing White Space..."
- Next in thread: Tony Proctor: "Re: Removing White Space..."
- Reply: Tony Proctor: "Re: Removing White Space..."
- Reply: Bob O`Bob: "Re: Removing White Space..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 06:36:02 -0500
"Tony Proctor" <tony_proctor@aimtechnology_NOSPAM.com> wrote
> There are a few variations of the sequence quoted in this thread, e.g.
>
> 2, 2, 5, 5, 16, 120
> 2, 3, 4, 7, 22, 232, 26797
> 2, 3, 3, 5, 13, 121, 9841, 64570081
>
> ..so which is the correct one folks?
The last two I recognise, but I don't remember seeing that top one.
Perhaps you copied it wrong? In any case, #2 is the best one over all.
I compared it with the bottom one about the time #2 was posted. For
about the first 3 terms they were equally performant but after that #2
was consistantly able to reach higher values than #3.
If you compare them term for term, for the task they were intended,
you will note that #2's terms are larger from position 3 on. (4 vs 3)
That means Replace will be replacing larger strings, and as a result,
do it fewer times for the same level of reduction.
LFS
- Next message: J French: "Re: Removing White Space..."
- Previous message: Kevin Myers: "Display Large Graphic Images"
- In reply to: Tony Proctor: "Re: Removing White Space..."
- Next in thread: Tony Proctor: "Re: Removing White Space..."
- Reply: Tony Proctor: "Re: Removing White Space..."
- Reply: Bob O`Bob: "Re: Removing White Space..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|