更新时间:2023-02-27 10:46:23
凭经验,它超过了约10万亿海明数或更高版本.
Empirically, it's above about 10 trillionths Hamming number, or higher.
使用不错的GCD技巧在这里无济于事,因为某些相邻的汉明数必然在它们之间没有共同的因素.
Using your nice GCD trick won't help us here, because some neighboring Hamming numbers are bound to have no common factors between them.
update: trying it online on ideone and elsewhere, we get
4T 5.81s 22.2MB -- 16 digits used.... still good
-- (as evidenced by the `True` below), but really pushing it.
((True,44531.6794,7.275957614183426e-11),(16348,16503,873),"2.3509E+13405")
-- isTruly max min logval nth-Hamming approx.
-- Sorted logval difference as i,j,k value
-- in band in band in decimal
10T 11.13s 26.4MB
((True,60439.6639,7.275957614183426e-11),(18187,23771,1971),"1.4182E+18194")
13T 14.44s 30.4MB ...still good
((True,65963.6432,5.820766091346741e-11),(28648,21308,1526),"1.0845E+19857")
---- same code on tio:
10T 16.77s
35T 38.84s
((True,91766.4800,5.820766091346741e-11),(13824,2133,32112),"2.9045E+27624")
70T 59.57s
((True,115619.1575,5.820766091346741e-11),(13125,13687,34799),"6.8310E+34804")
---- on home machine:
100T: 368.13s
((True,130216.1408,5.820766091346741e-11),(88324,876,17444),"9.2111E+39198")
140T: 466.69s
((True,145671.6480,5.820766091346741e-11),(9918,24002,42082),"3.4322E+43851")
170T: 383.26s ---FAULTY---
((False,155411.2501,0.0),(77201,27980,14584),"2.80508E+46783")