ENG  RUSTimus Online Judge
Online Judge
Задачи
Авторы
Соревнования
О системе
Часто задаваемые вопросы
Новости сайта
Форум
Ссылки
Архив задач
Отправить на проверку
Состояние проверки
Руководство
Регистрация
Исправить данные
Рейтинг авторов
Текущее соревнование
Расписание
Прошедшие соревнования
Правила
вернуться в форум

Обсуждение задачи 1352. Простые числа Мерсенна

Yaroslavtsev Grigory (SpbSPU) How to solve this problem without cheating? [10] // Задача 1352. Простые числа Мерсенна 22 мар 2005 04:24
Should I use some test of simplicity (from Cormen or somewhere else) or is there any better way for such numbers?
If someone knows how to solve this proble without
cheatin' (if carefull reading of the definition is a cheat) then he can get a lot of money... :)
Yaroslavtsev Grigory (SpbSPU) Re: How to solve this problem without cheating? // Задача 1352. Простые числа Мерсенна 22 мар 2005 13:27
Sorry, I understood after all, as for me I just found all the numbers in the Internet:)
Of course, you cannot solve it without "cheating".
The most powerful tests work for months to test one number!

You already have all numbers written in the text - why do you think it is cheating?
And it's easy to find the rest - up to 7-th. It's enough to test all numbers 2^p-1 up to 2^30-1 (only 30 numbers!) using bruteforce.
I don't think it is possible to solve it without cheating,
otherwise, why now the largest one is only 43th?

Any way, you can get most of the ans in the text, except 3~8...
AzuReVaPouR -~+~- [1] // Задача 1352. Простые числа Мерсенна 28 апр 2005 18:22
I agree
TheBeet Interesting // Задача 1352. Простые числа Мерсенна 9 июн 2005 06:06
Interesting
its just impossible to calculate it in 1 second.
If using Wikipedia and OEIS aren't cheating I know how to do it)
2rf писал(a) 8 августа 2007 21:48
If using Wikipedia and OEIS aren't cheating I know how to do it)
Using Wikipedia and OEIS may be cheating, but using the answers already in the problem definition definitely isn't.
I wonder , who can?