I like your solution. Agree with you on all your points, too.
Can you do even better?
Well, “factors” is shorter than “divisors”.
first 25 2 factors ints?
I think “first 25 2 factor ints” is more grammatical. Also shorter.
And if abbreviating “ints” is ok, so too is saving two characters by the use of “1st”.
I guess it’s the best way in English to somehow denote primes from 2 to 97.
Except for the “first 25 primes”, THYJOKING gave on my site, but was “discouraged” by me as a “trivial solution”.
Well, my “solution” or “kind of a solution” is
18402141709049765764
Shorter. All you have to do, is to convert this decimal number to the base 6:
3514510504510414114110404
Viewing this as a binary coded hexadecimal, there is the bitmap for primes up to 99. From left to right.
0011 0101 0001 0100 0101 0001 0000 0101 0000 0100 0101 0001 0000 0100 0001 0100 0001 0001 0100 0001 0001 0000 0100 0000 0100
For this size bitstrings, only one in 100 billion can be processed this way.
Right!
I like your solution. Agree with you on all your points, too.
Can you do even better?
Well, “factors” is shorter than “divisors”.
first 25 2 factors ints?
I think “first 25 2 factor ints” is more grammatical. Also shorter.
And if abbreviating “ints” is ok, so too is saving two characters by the use of “1st”.
I guess it’s the best way in English to somehow denote primes from 2 to 97.
Except for the “first 25 primes”, THYJOKING gave on my site, but was “discouraged” by me as a “trivial solution”.
Well, my “solution” or “kind of a solution” is
18402141709049765764
Shorter. All you have to do, is to convert this decimal number to the base 6:
3514510504510414114110404
Viewing this as a binary coded hexadecimal, there is the bitmap for primes up to 99. From left to right.
0011 0101 0001 0100 0101 0001 0000 0101 0000 0100 0101 0001 0000 0100 0001 0100 0001 0001 0100 0001 0001 0000 0100 0000 0100
For this size bitstrings, only one in 100 billion can be processed this way.
Right!