You're right. Hope I haven't offended with the fail, I thought I had tested
it - by iterating over a range and comparing it to Uncle Bob's but obviously
I didn't do that right and then realized that factorization is likely not
O(n) anyway. I'll probably take more time next time.
Regards,
Russell
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Steve Purcell <st...@sanityinc.com> wrote:
> On 11 Jun 2010, at 20:35, Russell Christopher wrote:
>
> > didn't need the assoc in my previous try
> >
> > (defn of [n]
> > (letfn [(f [res k]
> > (if (= 0 (rem (:n res) k))
> > {:n (/ (:n res) k) :fs (conj (:fs res) k)}
> > res))]
> > (:fs (reduce f {:n n :fs []} (range 2 n)))))
>
>
> The two give different answers. Given n=144, your version produces [2 3 4
> 6] and Uncle Bob's produces [2 2 2 2 3 3].
>
> -Steve
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Clojure" group.
> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with
> your first post.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<clojure%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
