Talk:Dinesman's multiple-dwelling problem: Difference between revisions
Talk:Dinesman's multiple-dwelling problem (view source)
Revision as of 13:20, 20 November 2016
, 7 years agoWeak signal-to-noise ratio in the task description. Please improve and remove this message.
(Weak signal-to-noise ratio in the task description. Please improve and remove this message.) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
==Weak signal-to-noise ratio in the task description. Please improve and remove this message==
: The quality of a formulation is the amount it reveals, divided by the processing effort which it imposes on readers. In short – the ratio of signal to noise.
: The ratio in this task description, on the issue labelled 'flexibility', is demonstrably just a bit too weak and dysfunctional (in its present form) to actually work.
: The significant number of "please XYZ and remove this message" notices on this page are are expressions of:
:'''1.''' Deficiencies in the task formulation
:'''2.''' Limited awareness of those deficiencies on the part of the author(s) of that formulation
:'''3.''' Projection of those deficiencies, and that lack of awareness, onto the hapless contributors of solutions.
: I think it might be constructive to summarily remove all the current 'compliance' notices. (The effort that would be required to work out what is really being asked for beneath that weak formulation seems rather unlikely to prove even remotely commensurate with the rewards).
: If there is felt to be any real light under the 'flexibility?' bushel, then perhaps the bushel needs to be removed by a fresh rewording, (with a better ratio of signal-to-noise) and a couple of examples. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 13:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
==Why stated like that?==
Remember those maths essay problems from school? Remember your teacher saying "It's not just getting the right answer that is important - it's how you got to it that gets the full marks"? Well this, I hope, is that kind of problem.<br>The idea is for examples to be able to vary names, numbers, constraints; and for the example's problem statement and answers to be easy to recognise from the task's problem description (or variants of). <br>If someone wants to implement natural language processing, be my guest. If someone wants to use a syntax more familiar to constraint programmers then that can be done too, (but think of the likely audience). --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 08:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 6 ⟶ 19:
: Heh there's no way to reliably parse English text, unless the text is restricted to be following some syntax rules. The question is rather, are you more interested in seeing how people provide methods for flexible input, or how people solve the dwelling problem? Which is the emphasis of this task? --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 08:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
::I thought finding a solution is no problem - brute force it if you must. The emphasis should be on stating the problem and presenting the
Line 32 ⟶ 45:
:::That would be the paragraph after the example output. It's just something explaining how to modify the code to deal with similar problems in case the code is not clear enough. To be fair, it's pretty obvious how to adapt the PicoLisp code to different input conditions, but it wouldn't hurt to write a sentence or two to explain it to readers who are unfamiliar with Lisp. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 07:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
:::: Ah, sorry, my fault. I didn't look down far enough, too much focused on the code. --[[User:Abu|Abu]] 09:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
==Second D entry==
After adding the second D entry, would someone, (Bearophile?), add comments on the examples comparative flexibility? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 06:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
| |||