The stupid question is the question not asked  
PerlMonks 
comment on 
( #3333=superdoc: print w/replies, xml )  Need Help?? 
BrowserUk,
I would be curious to see the results if you ever benchmark the GCD approach with the prime factor approach on the problem size you were mentioning The GCD Approach is O(m*n)*O(GCDalgo) but I am not sure how the complexity reduces for the prime factorization approach. You need to calculate the prime factor each of the product value right? i.e. if you have to do 100*101*102*103*104/57*58*59 then you need factor for each of the values correct? The GCD approach will loop (5 * 3)*O(GCDalgo) times. But prime factor approach needs to calc factors for 8 values and that could potentially loop a lot more per value (max upto the value) and the complexity will be more than the GCD approach. I ran the GCD approach and took about 9 minutes (not a formal benchmark) just to cancel out terms. Don't have any math package to do big multiplications/divisions. I even tried to reduce the inner loop by switching @a and @b but did not see a huge impact Also, i am confused whether the Haskell code actually computed the example (40000+!) because the execution speed was just unbelievable. Did it loose any precision when you tested it? I guess the approach was similar in canceling out terms. It makes me wonder why Perl canceling out takes so much longer than Haskell implementation will be happy to hear on how your final implementation look. Thanks, SK In reply to Re^3: Algorithm for cancelling common factors between two lists of multiplicands
by sk

