Talk:Luhn algorithm: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:30, 8 March 2025

Latest revision as of 00:34, 6 May 2025

(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 62:

:::You are correct. According to Vital (Now TSYS) the wording is correct and the pseudo-code is wrong. I have recommended that it be changed. Have to be careful though in how you word the for loop cause not all languages implement for the same. While loops may be safer and more language independant. --[[User:dmprantz|dmprantz]] 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, the pseudocode matches the description of the algorithm now, but the example given inis wrong (it doubles the OTHER digits, starting with the first from the end of the payload, and not with the second, while the description clearly says "every second" - it should say "every second counting the whole number, not only the payload"). More interesting, running the given number on 6 different online calculators, 4 of them givegave the result as in the example (i.e. 4) but the other 2 givegave the result as in the decriptiondescription and pseudocode (i.e. 3) :D My cards numbers all match the example, and not the description/pseudocode. Something is fishy in this article :P ... [[User:LaurV|LaurV]] ([[User talk:LaurV|talk]]) 04:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

=== Computing the check digit ===