Talk:Kaprekar numbers: Difference between revisions
→Common Lisp Implementation
No edit summary |
|||
Line 195:
You are probably not stupid, but it's safe to say you are not the smartest person on RC, by a long shot. And smart people around here tend to have good manners, unlike you or I. Stop treating yourself like you are the one true genius, and try to do something that's helpful to people instead of showing off, OK? (my guess: probably not. Oh well.) --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 00:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
:Well said. He is clearly more interested in being a pompous dick then contributing quality code to RC. --[[User:Lhignight|Larry Hignight]] 08:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Again ledrug why so angry? I didn't revert your edit, it is a good solution, I left it there and reinstated my solution which you deleted, as, indeed, it was you who deleted Larry's solution. There are three approaches to this problem which I have identified:
:1) a naive approach which loops over all numbers testing each fully for Kaprekarness (your first solution);
:2) a more sophiscated method which still loops over all numbers but implements a filter based on casting out nines which quickly eliminates seven nineths of the numbers (your second solution, thank you for praising my idea);
:3) realizing the nature of the uneliminated numbers it is possible to identify the residual sets to which possible Kaprekar numbers belong and generate them (which my solution does).
I therefore asked you not to delete it, and I said please! I asked you to understand the difference before you changed it, which you may. Agian I would say politely, I said please. Again I thank you for your praise for that which you judge to be my good idea, though of course without accepting your magesterium regarding the quality of any of my ideas.
I use Franz Allegro 9, do you want me to pass your comments 'kind of antique lisp machine you have installed in your basement' on to them? Also the version I use is case sensitive, so your use of t and T to disguish when you want t to mean true and T to mean boolean causes my rather advanced lip machine to identify T as an unbound variable, but I just quietly change it without impuning either you, SBCL, or CLisp.
Finally I have no reason to be vengeful to Paddy, I don't even feel vengeful towards you! He asked that the impementation include a count of the Kaprekars as requested in the task description, and I obliged. I named the count after him as my terrible vengence, I don't see it.--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] 12:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
| |||