<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>The Curling Number Conjecture · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0912.2382/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0912.2382/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>The Curling Number Conjecture — mentioned by danbruc</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17315509</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:0912.2382:17315509</guid><pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2018 21:24:36 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;The list has 52655 which almost certainly is 852655 sans the initial 8. I also read that he works at Intel and also wrote a paper together with Neil Sloane on some other sequence [1]. But no amount of access to hardware and no more or less straight forward optimization of the code given will bring you anywhere near calculating 10²³⁰ terms. You would need an algorithm that could essentially compute somewhere between 10¹⁰⁰ and 10²⁰⁰ terms per clock cycle to stand any chance. The closest thing I am aware of would by something like hashlife [2], an algorithm to speed up game of life simulations…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0912.2382/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.CO</category></item></channel></rss>
