Talk:Karatsuba algorithm: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Add topic

Revision as of 15:04, 15 December 2023 edit 213.41.102.186 (talk) →Was Babbage faster?: Reply Tag: Reply ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 11:12, 4 February 2024 edit undo Cewbot (talk \| contribs) Bots 8,373,680 edits m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{Maths rating}}, {{WikiProject Computing}}. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: field. Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: {{~~Maths~~WikiProject ~~rating~~banner shell\|class=C \|~~field=applied~~ {{WikiProject Mathematics\|priority=low}} {{WikiProject Computing ~~\|class=C~~ \|importance=Low \|science=y \|science-importance=Low \|software=y \|software-importance=Low}} }} == Divide and conquer (February 2011) == Line 227 ⟶ 230: :The great observation of Karatsuba is that 3 multiplications are sufficient where Babbage needed 4 multiplications, and that this leads to an algorithm that is faster (for large factors) than all previously known algorithms. [[User:D.Lazard\|D.Lazard]] ([[User talk:D.Lazard\|talk]]) 11:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC) ::Indeed. But, the four multiplications known to Babbage already beats "grade school," right? [[Special:Contributions/213.41.102.186\|213.41.102.186]] ([[User talk:213.41.102.186\|talk]]) 15:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC) :::Why do you think that? BTW, the 4 multiplications are the same as the "quadratic 'grade school' algorithm" with 2-digit numbers in a high radix. — [[User:Vincent Lefèvre\|Vincent Lefèvre]] ([[User talk:Vincent Lefèvre\|talk]]) 15:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC) ::::Oh, doesn't beat, understood. [[Special:Contributions/213.41.102.186\|213.41.102.186]] ([[User talk:213.41.102.186\|talk]]) 16:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)