Anonymous user
Talk:EKG sequence convergence: Difference between revisions
m
→EKG convergence: signed.
No edit summary |
m (→EKG convergence: signed.) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 21:
I've learnt something more. Thanks Nigel. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 21:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
==EKG convergence==
Hi Nigel, Showing more terms:
<pre>EKG(5): 1, 5, 10, 2, 4, 6, 3, 9, 12, 8, 14, 7, 21, 15, 18, 16, 20, 22, 11, 33, 24, 26
EKG(7): 1, 7, 14, 2, 4, 6, 3, 9, 12, 8, 10, 5, 15, 18, 16, 20, 22, 11, 33, 21, 24, 26</pre>
Although there is an earlier run of equal outputs, they actually converge at the 21st term. One neds information on the state used to generate the outputs to determine true convergence. [[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 11:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
<br>
The point is that you do not and should not. EKG(a) and EKG(b) converge when the set a(1)..a(n-1) equals set b(1)..b(n-1) and a(n) equals b(n). What ıs the point of RC if the solutions presented show less competence than would be expected of a schoolkid?--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 12:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Stop the name calling or you may be blocked Nigel. For convergence think more of when they will always continue to generate the same terms.
--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 01:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
| |||