Talk:Minimum number of cells after, before, above and below NxN squares: Difference between revisions

From Rosetta Code
Content added Content deleted
m (→‎Task description: distance to nearest edge?)
Line 7: Line 7:
So I'm wondering if we can't make the task description a little less ambiguous by rephrasing. (But I'm not completely convinced here that my second paragraph, above, is actually any clearer. Does anyone have strong opinions here?) --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 19:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
So I'm wondering if we can't make the task description a little less ambiguous by rephrasing. (But I'm not completely convinced here that my second paragraph, above, is actually any clearer. Does anyone have strong opinions here?) --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 19:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


:I don't really feel strongly about it but [[Minimum_number_of_cells_after,_before,_above_and_below_NxN_squares#Raku|my interpretation]] was that each cell should contain "the distance to the nearest edge". Which seemed a lot less convoluted to me. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 22:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
: I don't really feel strongly about it but [[Minimum_number_of_cells_after,_before,_above_and_below_NxN_squares#Raku|my interpretation]] was that each cell should contain "the distance to the nearest edge". Which seemed a lot less convoluted to me. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 22:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

:: I wonder if "the nearest" edge is well defined ? (There may be 2, or 4, of them).
:: Perhaps "minimum distance to the edge" (rather than implying a search for a particular edge) ? [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 08:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:32, 19 January 2023

Task description

The task description currently reads: "Find and show on this page the minimum number of cells after, before, above and below N×N squares, where N = 10."

But "cells after, before, above and below" here suggests addition when what we're looking for is the minimum of the four lengths of distances to the edge in each of the up, down, left and right directions.

So I'm wondering if we can't make the task description a little less ambiguous by rephrasing. (But I'm not completely convinced here that my second paragraph, above, is actually any clearer. Does anyone have strong opinions here?) --Rdm (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't really feel strongly about it but my interpretation was that each cell should contain "the distance to the nearest edge". Which seemed a lot less convoluted to me. --Thundergnat (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I wonder if "the nearest" edge is well defined ? (There may be 2, or 4, of them).
Perhaps "minimum distance to the edge" (rather than implying a search for a particular edge) ? Hout (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)