Anonymous user
Talk:Farey sequence: Difference between revisions
→Grumble about "marked as incorrect": added comments about the J language's output being marked as "incorrect".
(→Grumble about "marked as incorrect": new section) |
(→Grumble about "marked as incorrect": added comments about the J language's output being marked as "incorrect".) |
||
Line 39:
As a first pass, I'm going to address this "incorrect" with documentation. If the task description itself gets changed to document the "completely reduced format" I will of course comply, but I wanted to put my reasoning here, before I did that.
-----
The definition doesn't specifically mention an ''exact'' format, but every example shown (anywhere) are displayed as what people would easily recognize as fractions.
Indeed, the first and last terms are specifically called fractions, and even mentions HOW they are to be expressed (that is, as fractions, specifically as 0/0 and 1/1), not zero and unity. This is part of the definition of a Farey sequence (that is, how it is displayed, otherwise 0 and 1 would be used). So is the definition of the terms in-between the first and last entries, these are fractions (which are completely reduced). Again, note that the end fractions are ''defined'' to be 0/1 and 1/1, all others between 0 and 1 are shown in lowest terms (or in other words, reduced, ... or to be more specific, completely reduced). I.E.: 28/48 could be reduced to 14/24, but completely reduced is 7/12.
As far as the ''internal'' format for any language, that doesn't matter. Although it mentions elsewhere that they are positive integers, I won't quibble if they are (internally) stored in some other format. If a language stores integers internally as binary, I still expect the output to be shown in base ten (decimal), and without a leading plus sign, and without a trailing decimal point, and with superfluous leading zeroes suppressed, and without superfluous zeros elsewhere, and have the sequence shown horizontally instead of a vertically format, and without superfluous blanks (i.e.: 7 / 9 ) for that matter. I wouldn't complain if the horizontal/vertical format wasn't thus, but everybody saw the practicality of using a horizontal format. I think that the obvious shouldn't have to be stated. In doing so, it would really, really clutter up the requirements, not to mention make it tedious bore to read. What matters is how the Farey sequences are displayed: as fractions as per the examples (showing the orders of 1 to 5). Please try to show the Farey sequences as close as possible to those examples. If it's a trivial thing to use a solidus instead of an '''r''', then please transform the Farey sequences (output). All examples shown in the programming entries use the common form of fractions: the use of a solidus ('''/''') instead of a horizontal bar (as do the examples of orders 1 to 5 in the preamble, a nicety that HTML provides). I don't know anybody who doesn't recognize that format as an example of a fraction.
It wasn't my intent to have you ''match'' a particular output from another programming example's to order to conform to that language's output, I just chose '''C''' because it was the first one in the language list and reduced any scrolling to locate it. The perfect (output) model of efficiency and minimalism. When I said, '''see''' that example, I meant just look at it to get the general idea; its a good example of what all other programming examples have done. This isn't about making any particular language's output look like another's output. It's about having the output reflect the definition (or example, if you will) of the Farey sequences (order 1 to 5) as exemplified in the Rosetta Code task's preamble.
As an aside, I chose to mark the output as incorrect (as opposed to have this discussion in the talk page) as it would've been so easy to comply, and once done, the flag would be removed, and there would be no fuss, no mess. Whereas these comments will be around forever.
-- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 17:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
-----
| |||