Talk:Matrix with two diagonals: Difference between revisions
m
(I am reverting this, again, because our anonymous friend calls history "urban legend" See also cve-2010-0517, CVE-2011-0217, https://github.com/uclouvain/openjpeg/issues/862, etc.) The politics might matter, but not while ignoring history.
m (Edited previous comment.) |
m ((I am reverting this, again, because our anonymous friend calls history "urban legend" See also cve-2010-0517, CVE-2011-0217, https://github.com/uclouvain/openjpeg/issues/862, etc.) The politics might matter, but not while ignoring history.) |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 14:
:: I wonder if there isn't a line that needs to be drawn at the point where the quality of task descriptions declines so far that they are not even secure (let alone adequate). [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 10:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
::
:: '''Suggestion 1'''. Delete that link to a JPEG. Some of
:: '''Suggestion 2'''. Replace the JPEG link with a textual matrix and an adequate description. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 11:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Line 25:
:::::I agree, of course, with what you've just said and my earlier remarks pre-supposed that the task description was already reasonably adequate. However, if I can understand the language it's written in, I generally read the author's solution (or at least its 'textual' output, if any) to make sure my understanding of the task is correct. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 11:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
:::::Having said that, there was a task a day or two back where I didn't understand the author's solution (written in Quackery) but I still managed to achieve the same output even though it later turned out that my understanding of the task was incorrect! --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 12:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
| |||