Talk:Kaprekar numbers: Difference between revisions
→Conflict Resolution?
(→Conflict Resolution?: I'm done with it) |
|||
Line 214:
: Don't worry about my side, I've said what I wanted to say, and am not getting back into it. Though I'm pessimistic about ''everyone'' eventually agreeing to a reasonable resolution: I wouldn't have flat out called someone a self-important dick if past experience showed that he could be reasoned with or that he did have a bit of sincerity when exhibiting his knowledge in spelling the word "please". I'd like to be wrong on this, but I won't hold my breath. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 05:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I can identify three issues, none requiring any particular Lisp knowledge to resolve:
==== Issue the first ====
Sorry Paddy, you are probably going to have to pass the first to Michael. It is really a matter of editorial policy under what circumstances it is acceptable on rosetta code to call someone a "pompous dick" (if it is acceptable, how far may I go in responding?). Either way I can take it, boys will be boys. I don't know why ledrug chose to vomit over rosetta code, he seems to think his bile is reason, and to be suprised that it doesn't have the effect on me he thinks it should.
==== Issue the second ====
As Larry says "Anyone can view the history". Let's do so.
:(cur | prev) 23:12, 19 September 2012? Ledrug (Talk | contribs)? m (84,428 bytes) (?{{header|Common Lisp}}: improve silly logic) (undo)
:(cur | prev) 04:55, 19 September 2012? Ledrug (Talk | contribs)? (84,438 bytes) (?{{header|Common Lisp}}: reduce code; simplify; speed up; conform to task and extra) (undo)
:(cur | prev) 00:12, 19 September 2012? Lhignight (Talk | contribs)? (88,507 bytes) (?{{header|Common Lisp}}: Updated the description of the 'fast' implementation.) (undo)
:(cur | prev) 23:54, 18 September 2012? Lhignight (Talk | contribs)? (88,429 bytes) (Undo revision 140330 by Nigel Galloway (talk)) (undo)
:(cur | prev) 23:52, 18 September 2012? Lhignight (Talk | contribs)? (90,240 bytes) (Undo revision 140337 by Paddy3118 (talk)) (undo)
:(cur | prev) 23:50, 18 September 2012? Lhignight (Talk | contribs)? (90,151 bytes) (Undo revision 140331 by Nigel Galloway (talk)) (undo)
:(cur | prev) 23:47, 18 September 2012? Lhignight (Talk | contribs)? (90,293 bytes) (Undo revision 140336 by Nigel Galloway (talk) See the CL section of the talk page for further discussion) (undo)
:(cur | prev) 11:38, 9 July 2012? Nigel Galloway (Talk | contribs)? (79,959 bytes) (?{{header|Common Lisp}}) (undo)
I made a change to Larry's Common Lisp implemantation to make it work on 9 July 2012. This stood until 18 September 2012, when Larry unidid the changes returning the implementation to a less than working solution. Ledrug completely replaced Larry's solution with a working example on 19 September 2012. For some reason Larry thinks I broke his solution and says "And for the record, Ledrug replaced YOUR version, not mine.". I think Larry is simply wrong in fact. The problem is that ledrug replaced Larrys solution to, in ledrug's description "reduce code; simplify; speed up; conform to task and extra improve silly logic". This has made Larry angry, I think with the wrong person.
I would prefer that ledrug did not so overwrite someone elses work, but Larry seemed more interested in pointless abuse of me than improving and justifying his solution. Anyway I had a better idea.
==== Issue the third ====
I have identified 3 approaches to this task:
1) a naive approach which loops over all numbers testing each fully for Kaprekarness;
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;
3) realizing the nature of the uneliminated numbers it is possible to identify the residual sets to which possible Kaprekar numbers belong and generates them.
ledrug's solution was of the first ilk, my better idea was to implemented a solution of the third. ledrug responded by upgrading his solution to type 2 and overwrote my solution with his. I recovered my solution and left ledrug's second solution in tact. He says's "then my edit you reverted" (sic), perhaps he didn't check the changes and thought I had deleted his - I had not. I may work further on this solution. I have noticed that the first 2 Kaprekars are in ran and that the test is simpler when it only needs to identify Kaprekars larger than Base. I have asked ledrug to leave this solution in place. I think he will comply even though he thinks saying please is bad manners. Larry didn't leave it, but I just put that down to vengence, the only reason he supplied is that ledrug has taught him to swear. I have supplied two good C++ solutions, but have not deleted the origional rather slow version. Ledrug has now implemented a fourth method, without deleting any one elses. Is that not better?
--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] 13:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
| |||