I have handed you the best solution to this problem in this case.

You haven't handed anyone here anything. Ever! Except, dubious council & mal-advice, technical buffoonery, the rare scrap of broken code, and eye-ache.

And you certainly have handed me, nor even described, "a solution" to anything.

What you have done in this post, after 4 (or is it 5? Or 6?) attempts -- now you finally dropped all mention of REP SCASB|W|D; which was your only unique, though entirely broken, contribution to this thread -- is to hand-wavely, approximately describe something vaguely akin to what was already better described in my OP, way back up there. Ie. You need to compare every 64-bit value at every one of the 64-bit offsets! There is no shortcut. And I wasn't looking for one.

But then, as always, you go and screw it all up with this contradictory, non-sequitous garbage: "The “interesting bit-string problem has reduced itself a non-problem, precisely because you know that the “value being sought” is about 15,000 quadwords long, and you know the value that must occur at any of those positions. If you search for the expected value for position #2, then directly test offsets #1,000 and #15,000 and find the expected answer ... you have your answer. All that remains is to confirm it.";

That simple has no useful interpretation. So once again, you crash and burn.

What you've also done is totally pollute this thread -- as with so many others previously -- such that your garbage, and my refutation of it, has rendered nil, almost all interest in the actual problem I wanted help -- not your spurious and pointless speculations -- in solving.

Your continued need to stick your oar in where its not wanted, -- and you've been told, repeatedly, that its not wanted -- and to suffer the humiliation of being shown -- yet again -- that your attempts at technical contributions here are nothing more than a vacuous pretense of some kind of technical knowledge; simply corrupts the nature and purpose of this place.

You neither disseminate learning; nor acquire any. Your 'contributions' here are all, entirely negative. And your persistence in vomiting them in our direction is far more offensive and "rude" than any "bad words" I might have used.

And your, entirely puerile, attempts to offend me by mentioning the British Royals is hilarious. I couldn't give two hoots what you say about them.

(Be careful what you say; Brangalina might be listening!)

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked

In reply to Re^2: [OT] The interesting problem of comparing bit-strings. by BrowserUk
in thread [OT] The interesting problem of comparing bit-strings. by BrowserUk

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.