Anonymous user
Talk:Perfect shuffle: Difference between revisions
comment on task update
(Hmm... but.... to be somewhat true to the original task...) |
(comment on task update) |
||
Line 157:
:::: That last value might be excessive, but looking at the original task, for a sequence of 9950 numbers I get a cycle length of 9948. So if we are being true to the original task description I imagine we should include something similar in the updated requirements? Or is the 9950 example already an unreasonable burden? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 11:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
: I felt like doing some improved HTML diagrams, so I went and updated the whole task while I was at it, using a list of values similar as I suggested above, but amended slightly include 52 (the size of a standard card deck) and 8 (the example given in the introduction). It also has two powers of 10, two powers of 2, one factorial, and one number where the result is almost as big as the deck size (and also pretty right in absolute terms). I think that should cover everything of interest. --[[User:Smls|Smls]] ([[User talk:Smls|talk]]) 13:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
| |||