From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c9d5fc258548b22a
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!transit3.readnews.com!textspool1.readnews.com!news-out.readnews.com!postnews3.readnews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 15:00:28 -0500
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How do I write directly to a memory address?
References: 
 <67063a5b-f588-45ea-bf22-ca4ba0196ee6@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <4d5031fe$0$6765$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <1f229967-d3cf-42b6-8087-c97ee08652f3@i40g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
 <4d51169e$0$7657$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <db60098c-2569-4efb-aa81-253ba53686b4@y26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <iis37l$t09$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
 <4d51905c$0$19486$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <36212a7b-deab-45d9-ac45-aa29cd90c7bc@o18g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
 <4d51a7bb$0$19486$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net> <iisll6$9th$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <4d52b489$0$19486$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <9a8njlwvey1p.1a96yvvgdf6yu.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4d52c5e5$0$19486$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <ewxe8m5g7wz3$.k115u2qzl8ry.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4d52d7d9$0$18057$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <1jf3s95v7yrkk.1m7rl9zt042py$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4d52e704$0$18057$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <271ad249-94dd-43d9-b550-59bd8e2208fc@y12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <271ad249-94dd-43d9-b550-59bd8e2208fc@y12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4d52f25d$0$18057$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 320ba6a4.usenet-news.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=3hNb<3n^CjN0gU[gLZQGQG^oXGM_6\KV@mX0AG3X_jUO<^JMhOhjP4NVjKk:Lk^BNAcR12TN^Bg7NCKIHCW3N^VDOiaDcmXlf@E
X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenet-news.net
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:18112
Date: 2011-02-09T15:00:28-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2/9/2011 2:41 PM, Shark8 wrote:
> Yes. It takes a bit of doing but check out the proofs of recursive
> &  iterative implementations of functions being identical. The
> methods used in the implementations are *NOT* identical, but
> the methods themselves are identical in that for ANY input
> given they produce the EXACT SAME output.

Can I play too? I'll write my routine in C, but the translation
to Ada should be readily apparent:

unsigned Exponent(unsigned base, unsigned exp)
{
     if (exp == 0) return 1;
     if (base == 0) return 0;
     while (true)
     {
         unsigned guess = random();
         unsigned g = guess;
         unsigned i = 0;
         while (g % base == 0 && i < exp)
         {
             g = g / base;
             i = i + 1;
         }
         if (g == 1 && i == exp) return guess;
     }
}

Is it OK if I replace your Exponent method with my implementation?