Paul McGuire wrote:
> If I see farther, it is because I stand on the shoulders of an
> infinite number of monkeys.
If I ever get around to writing a book on numerical methods/computational
science/whatever, this will be the chapter quote for my chapter on Monte Carlo
algorithms.
--
Robert Kern
Are you maybe trying to create a rainbow table, or a very big
dictionary
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Paul McGuire wrote:
> On Apr 13, 8:53 am, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure you could give a separate name to each atom ont he known
>> universe with a scheme like this. Do you really need 20-byte strings?
>>
>
> Steve,
>
> Based on the Wikipedia article's estimate of 10
On Apr 13, 10:41 am, "Paul McGuire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 10:22 am, Michael Bentley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 13, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Paul McGuire wrote:
>
> > > If you just expand the length to five million* or so, one of those
> > > strings will contain all
On Apr 13, 8:53 am, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure you could give a separate name to each atom ont he known
> universe with a scheme like this. Do you really need 20-byte strings?
>
Steve,
Based on the Wikipedia article's estimate of 10**79 atoms in the
observable un
On Apr 13, 10:49 am, Carsten Haese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 10:22 -0500, Michael Bentley wrote:
> > On Apr 13, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Paul McGuire wrote:
>
> > > If you just expand the length to five million* or so, one of those
> > > strings will contain all the works of Shake
On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 10:22 -0500, Michael Bentley wrote:
> On Apr 13, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Paul McGuire wrote:
>
> > If you just expand the length to five million* or so, one of those
> > strings will contain all the works of Shakespeare.
>
> Not likely, even with a tiny sampling of the works of Sh
On Apr 13, 10:22 am, Michael Bentley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Apr 13, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Paul McGuire wrote:
>
> > If you just expand the length to five million* or so, one of those
> > strings will contain all the works of Shakespeare.
>
> Not likely, even with a tiny sampling of the works o
On Apr 13, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Paul McGuire wrote:
> If you just expand the length to five million* or so, one of those
> strings will contain all the works of Shakespeare.
Not likely, even with a tiny sampling of the works of Shakespeare:
# :-)
import string
import random
def main(bardText, ma
On Apr 13, 9:27 am, "Jia Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you just expand the length to five million* or so, one of those
> > strings will contain all the works of Shakespeare.
>
> Oops, you have this formula in math?
>
> Actually I want to scan a range of network for some certain files.
Sorr
> If you just expand the length to five million* or so, one of those
> strings will contain all the works of Shakespeare.
Oops, you have this formula in math?
Actually I want to scan a range of network for some certain files.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Apr 13, 8:53 am, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jia Lu wrote:
> >> for m in test:
> >> for n in test:
> >> for o in test:
> >> for p in test:
> >> print m+n+o+p
>
> > Thanx for your anwser.
> > But if I consider about a combination of over 26 le
Jia Lu wrote:
>> for m in test:
>> for n in test:
>> for o in test:
>> for p in test:
>> print m+n+o+p
>
> Thanx for your anwser.
> But if I consider about a combination of over 26 letter's list just
> like:
> "abcdefssdzxcvzxcvzcv"
> "asllxcvxcbbedfgdfgdg"
sorry for the bad grammar. I didn't investigate the StackLess Python,
but as I have been reading about it (so if it was correct), the
recursionlimit should not be the problem using StackLess Python.
>From my expirience with python and recursions, it works well to the
depth of about 200 to 500 (depe
azrael wrote:
> I think that this would be very silly to do. bad kung foo. The
> recoursion technique would be more satisfying. You sholud consider
> that this would take about 4 lines to write. Also be avare of the
> default recoursion depth in python wich is 1000. you can get and set
> the recou
On Apr 13, 8:16 am, "Jia Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > for m in test:
> > for n in test:
> > for o in test:
> > for p in test:
> > print m+n+o+p
>
> Thanx for your anwser.
> But if I consider about a combination of over 26 letter's list just
> like:
> "a
I think that this would be very silly to do. bad kung foo. The
recoursion technique would be more satisfying. You sholud consider
that this would take about 4 lines to write. Also be avare of the
default recoursion depth in python wich is 1000. you can get and set
the recoursion limit hrough impor
> for m in test:
> for n in test:
> for o in test:
> for p in test:
> print m+n+o+p
Thanx for your anwser.
But if I consider about a combination of over 26 letter's list just
like:
"abcdefssdzxcvzxcvzcv"
"asllxcvxcbbedfgdfgdg"
.
Need I write 26 for loo
Paul Rubin wrote:
[snip]
>
> def a(n):
> if n==0:
> yield ''
> return
> for c in s:
> for r in a(n-1):
> yield c+r
>
> print list(a(3))
Of course, obvious in retrospect, recursion instead of iteration.
I have yet to comp
Charles Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Forgive any silly mistakes I have made (I've been teaching
> myself python for about 1 week) but there is a moderately
> well known algorithm for this that extends to arbitrary
> lengths of both the list of alternatives and the length
> of the required
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Apr 12, 10:16�pm, "Jia Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi all.
>> �I want to create a large list like:
>>
>> ~
>>
>> Is there any good algorithm to do this?
>
> Sure.
> test = '01'
>
> for m in test:
> for n in test:
> for o in test:
>
On Apr 12, 10:16�pm, "Jia Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all.
> �I want to create a large list like:
>
> ~
>
> Is there any good algorithm to do this?
Sure.
test = '01'
for m in test:
for n in test:
for o in test:
for p in test:
print m+n+o+p
22 matches
Mail list logo
