Timeline for Delicate primes
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
37 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 31, 2021 at 18:49 | comment | added | Carl Witthoft | Unless "delicate" is different from "Digitallly delicate" this is the wrong definition -- this looks like a "fragile" prime. | |
| Mar 3, 2021 at 19:12 | comment | added | caird coinheringaahing♦ | Very closely related | |
| Sep 22, 2020 at 10:33 | answer | added | Stef | timeline score: 1 | |
| Sep 21, 2020 at 14:47 | history | edited | caird coinheringaahing ♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 711 characters in body
|
| Sep 21, 2020 at 14:12 | answer | added | Noodle9 | timeline score: 1 | |
| Sep 21, 2020 at 12:57 | answer | added | Dominic van Essen | timeline score: 3 | |
| Sep 21, 2020 at 12:27 | answer | added | pxeger | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 21, 2020 at 11:23 | comment | added | Dominic van Essen | Oops. That's what I meant. I think... | |
| Sep 21, 2020 at 11:22 | history | edited | caird coinheringaahing ♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 11 characters in body
|
| Sep 21, 2020 at 11:20 | comment | added | caird coinheringaahing♦ | @DominicvanEssen 81 isn't prime (\81ドル = 9\times9\$), but yeah, I'll add that in as a test case because removing the \8ドル\$ and the \1ドル\$ gives \2ドル\$ which is prime | |
| Sep 21, 2020 at 11:19 | comment | added | Dominic van Essen | Suggest 821 as a non-delicate-prime test case. I misunderstood from the explanation that we could only remove contiguous digits from the test number (and didn't go-through all the numbers in the example). It turns-out that 821 is the first example that gives a different answer (since 81 is prime) - all the other delicate primes up to 499 don't require removal of non-contiguous digits. | |
| Sep 21, 2020 at 9:55 | answer | added | Arnauld | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 21, 2020 at 8:38 | answer | added | Noodle9 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 21, 2020 at 8:32 | history | edited | caird coinheringaahing ♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 275 characters in body
|
| Sep 21, 2020 at 3:28 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Sep 21, 2020 at 1:17 | comment | added | Bubbler | There has been a recent discussion about default output format for decision problems. Note that the word "consistent" is used in a different sense. | |
| Sep 21, 2020 at 1:12 | answer | added | Bubbler | timeline score: 9 | |
| Sep 21, 2020 at 0:11 | answer | added | Adnan | timeline score: 12 | |
| Sep 21, 2020 at 0:10 | answer | added | att | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 21, 2020 at 0:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackCodeGolf/status/1307831915886637067 | ||
| Sep 20, 2020 at 23:56 | answer | added | Jonathan Allan | timeline score: 7 | |
| Sep 20, 2020 at 23:51 | comment | added | Jonathan Allan | As per default consensus the outputs would have to be consistently truthy and consistently falsey, it's just they would not necessarily need be distinct - e.g. Python could return a list which is populated (possibly differently for different inputs) as a truthy result, and an empty list as a falsey result, etc. | |
| Sep 20, 2020 at 23:40 | comment | added | caird coinheringaahing♦ | @JonathanAllan I’m loathe to say "no" to reasonable I/O requests, so I think I’ll say that truthy/falsey values count as distinct values, so long as one is consistently truthy and the other consistently falsey. It’s a bit unconventional, but I think that should work as best as possible | |
| Sep 20, 2020 at 23:35 | comment | added | Jonathan Allan | "two distinct, consistent values depending on whether n is a delicate prime or not" - can we not use our languages truthy/falsey definition? | |
| Sep 20, 2020 at 23:16 | vote | accept | caird coinheringaahing ♦ | ||
| Sep 20, 2020 at 23:37 | |||||
| Sep 20, 2020 at 22:50 | history | edited | caird coinheringaahing ♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 12 characters in body
|
| Sep 20, 2020 at 21:39 | answer | added | Shaggy | timeline score: 5 | |
| Sep 20, 2020 at 21:21 | answer | added | user | timeline score: 3 | |
| Sep 20, 2020 at 21:01 | answer | added | xash | timeline score: 4 | |
| Sep 20, 2020 at 20:50 | answer | added | Neil | timeline score: 3 | |
| Sep 20, 2020 at 20:40 | history | edited | caird coinheringaahing ♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 7 characters in body
|
| Sep 20, 2020 at 20:39 | answer | added | xash | timeline score: 7 | |
| Sep 20, 2020 at 19:43 | answer | added | Mukundan314 | timeline score: 4 | |
| Sep 20, 2020 at 19:39 | history | edited | caird coinheringaahing ♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 16 characters in body
|
| Sep 20, 2020 at 19:38 | comment | added | caird coinheringaahing♦ | @RobinRyder That's a bit of confusing wording on my part. The input will always be a positive integer (not necessarily prime), the "given a prime number \$n\$..." is part of the explanation, changing now | |
| Sep 20, 2020 at 19:37 | comment | added | Robin Ryder | The question states "given a prime number \$n\$..." but the first output option states "given a positive integer \$n\$..." If we choose the first output option, is the input guaranteed to be prime? | |
| Sep 20, 2020 at 19:27 | history | asked | caird coinheringaahing ♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |