Talk:Cycle detection: Difference between revisions
(added a new talk section.) |
|||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Is it an intent that the solutions ''must'' use the Brent algorithm? -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 22:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC) |
Is it an intent that the solutions ''must'' use the Brent algorithm? -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 22:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
I would prefer that it use Brent, since that makes it easier for those who might benefit from the algorithm to make an apples-to-apples comparison when looking at different language implementations. At the very least the implementer should identify which algorithm they are using. The performance characteristics can very considerably among algorithms. |
|||
--[[User:Paul.chernoch|Paul.chernoch]] ([[User talk:Paul.chernoch|talk]]) 22:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:52, 26 February 2016
output
Wouldn't it be sufficient just to print the cycle? Fwend (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. My choice of output was influenced by the needs of an algorithm that uses Cycle detection as a subroutine. Printing the cycle would make it easier to test and visualize the results. --Paul.chernoch (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
task requirement
I've noticed that some entries don't use the Brent algorithm in finding a solution.
Is it an intent that the solutions must use the Brent algorithm? -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I would prefer that it use Brent, since that makes it easier for those who might benefit from the algorithm to make an apples-to-apples comparison when looking at different language implementations. At the very least the implementer should identify which algorithm they are using. The performance characteristics can very considerably among algorithms. --Paul.chernoch (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)