/prog/ - Working with large numbers

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-27 19:45

I'm creating a program in C that factors a really, really large number(600851475143). What data type should I be using?
Also, my compiler told me that I cannot use the modulus operator with the previously stated number and long type number. How do I fix this?

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-27 19:47

Use long long, and declare the number as 600851475143LL

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-27 19:53

>>2
Thanks for the help, friend!

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-27 19:53

use an arbitrary-precision number library

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-27 21:22

GMP. or BigInteger of java. Or just python. java nad python are slow though. But, who cares?

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-27 21:32

http://pastebin.com/xcFgjmsj
Please critique my code.
Disclaimer: I am a faggot.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-27 23:11

#include <low_primes.h> //Adds an array of primes (long) low_primes[];
IFUCKINGHBT

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 1:44

>>6
//No space between ``//'' and the comment text
JAVA101 programmer

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 10:40

>>8
That was the worst you noticed, was it?

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 10:41

>>6
FUCK YOU



#include <stdio.h>

#include <low_primes.h> //Adds an array of primes (long) low_primes[];



main()

{

    long factors[40];

    long long number = 600851475143LL;

    int i = 0;

    int n = 0;

    

    while (low_primes[i] != 99991)

    {

        if(number%low_primes[i] == 0)

        {

            factors[i] = low_primes[i];

            number/=low_primes[i];

        }

        if(number == 1 | number == 0)

        {



            while (n < 40)

            {

                printf("%l", factors[n]);

                n++;

            }

            break; // BECAUSE FUCK YOU GOTO

                   // PIG DISGUSTING!!!



        }

        i++;

    }

//  BREAK:

//      while (n < 40)

//      {

//          printf("%l", factors[n]);

//          n++;

//      }

    return 0;

}

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 10:45

fuck you considered harmful

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 10:48

>>10
You haven't even come close to fixing the worst of it, you twit.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 10:54

>>10
I used a break yesterday. It didn't feel good at all.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 10:55

>>10
break is considered harmful for the same reason goto is, idiot. Read the fucking paper.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 10:58

>>14
You'd rather put all conditions for breaking out of a loop in its head?

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 10:59

>>14
break and goto both have their place. Look at any OS code. goto is used in a lot of places.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 11:10

>>6
That code has so many problems that I don't even want to start listing them.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 11:11

``considered harmful'' considered harmful

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 11:12

>>17
Looking at his code makes me feel better about mine.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 11:39

goto BREAK;
IHBT.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 13:13

>>15
Read the fucking paper.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 13:17

>>21
Flow control considered harmful?

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 13:48

>>22
Read the fucking paper.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 15:09

>>9
It was the first thing I noticed.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 16:20

>>23
Fuck reading the paper.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 16:26

>>6
here.
I apologize for my use of goto, I understand that it creates spaghetti code on occasion. Thanks to >>10 for helping me tackle my problem.
Please calm down, I even included a disclaimer in my post.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 17:19

>>26
It's not your use, but your misuse. Any use of goto where anything else that's not incredibly awkward would have worked is misuse; every other use may be ok.

>>10
You helped him!!

Name: Anonymous 2010-12-24 15:47

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-30 1:32

>>26-29
Read the fucking paper.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-30 1:33

>>30
Fuck the paper. Literally, though. And take pictures please.

Working with large numbers

1 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-27 19:45

2 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-27 19:47

3 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-27 19:53

4 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-27 19:53

5 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-27 21:22

6 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-27 21:32

7 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-27 23:11

8 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 1:44

9 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 10:40

10 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 10:41

11 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 10:45

12 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 10:48

13 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 10:54

14 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 10:55

15 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 10:58

16 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 10:59

17 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 11:10

18 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 11:11

19 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 11:12

20 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 11:39

21 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 13:13

22 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 13:17

23 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 13:48

24 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 15:09

25 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 16:20

26 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 16:26

27 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 17:19

29 Name: Anonymous 2010-12-24 15:47

30 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-30 1:32

31 Name: Anonymous 2011-01-30 1:33

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-27 19:45

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-27 19:47

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-27 19:53

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-27 19:53

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-27 21:22

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-27 21:32

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-27 23:11

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 1:44

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 10:40

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 10:41

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 10:45

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 10:48

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 10:54

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 10:55

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 10:58

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 10:59

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 11:10

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 11:11

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 11:12

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 11:39

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 13:13

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 13:17

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 13:48

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 15:09

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 16:20

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 16:26

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 17:19

Name: Anonymous 2010-12-24 15:47

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-30 1:32

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-30 1:33