[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#22567: Factoring 38 nines
From: |
SasQ |
Subject: |
bug#22567: Factoring 38 nines |
Date: |
Fri, 05 Feb 2016 19:30:21 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 |
2016.02.05 @ 18:55, Eric Blake wrote:
> The program is not hanging, just spending a LONG time. Some numbers
> are inherently easier to factor than others, when using
> currently-known non-quantum algorithms.
>
> On my machine: $ time factor
> 99999999999999999999999999999999999999
> 99999999999999999999999999999999999999: 3 3 11 909090909090909091
> 1111111111111111111
>
> real 0m45.630s user 0m45.684s sys 0m0.000s
OK, this convinces me this is not a bug. 4m30 on my machine.
But it's definitely a user-interface fail ;)
It should at least output some warning that the computations might
take longer, or display some progress status / estimated time along
the way.
Because otherwise the user can think it simply hangs.
> The source code is there for you to peruse.
There sure is, but analyzing it just to figure out the algorithm takes
much more time than refering the maual to see which particular
factorization algorithm or its variation is in use.
It took me a while to find the answer on StackOverflow:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11155331/what-is-the-algorithm-behind-the-factor-command-in-linux
so mentioning it in the man page wouldn't hurt.
Anyway, thanks for your detailed explanations.
--
SasQ
- bug#22567: Factoring 38 nines, SasQ, 2016/02/05
- bug#22567: Factoring 38 nines, Eric Blake, 2016/02/05
- bug#22567: Factoring 38 nines, Eric Blake, 2016/02/05
- bug#22567: Factoring 38 nines,
SasQ <=
- bug#22567: Factoring 38 nines, Eric Blake, 2016/02/05
- bug#22567: Factoring 38 nines, Jim Meyering, 2016/02/05
- bug#22567: Factoring 38 nines, Linda Walsh, 2016/02/07
- bug#22567: Factoring 38 nines, f0rhum, 2016/02/08
- bug#22567: Factoring 38 nines, Eric Blake, 2016/02/08
- bug#22567: Factoring 38 nines, Leslie S Satenstein, 2016/02/05