Re: Removing White Space...
From: Tony Proctor (tony_proctor_at_aimtechnology_NOSPAM.com)
Date: 04/10/04
- Next message: Don_at_home.com: "Sorting of Sorts"
- Previous message: Troy Scott: "Re: student question/ array"
- In reply to: Larry Serflaten: "Re: Removing White Space..."
- Next in thread: Bob O`Bob: "Re: Removing White Space..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 15:29:47 +0100
The first one was in a post from Bob O'Bob, on 4th April Larry
Tony
"Larry Serflaten" <serflaten@usinternet.com> wrote in message
news:#Rauu$uHEHA.2300@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
> "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: Don_at_home.com: "Sorting of Sorts"
- Previous message: Troy Scott: "Re: student question/ array"
- In reply to: Larry Serflaten: "Re: Removing White Space..."
- Next in thread: Bob O`Bob: "Re: Removing White Space..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
