Talk:Nimber arithmetic: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) m (→Task description error?: not seeing what you are) |
|||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
: Which implementations produce 11112? Every one that I see that displays 7 ⊗ 16 has 112 for the result. Unless you are including the 7 ⊗ 15 result (11) in there? --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 21:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC) |
: Which implementations produce 11112? Every one that I see that displays 7 ⊗ 16 has 112 for the result. Unless you are including the 7 ⊗ 15 result (11) in there? --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 21:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC) |
||
:: Ah, that was my problem. Yes, I did not notice that those two columns had been merged in the display. Thanks. |
|||
:: That said, I am still uncomfortable with the lack of treatment of the infinite sequences of negative values. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 23:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 23:29, 24 February 2022
Task description error?
The task description asserts:
- the nim-product of a Fermat power (22k) and a smaller number is their ordinary product
But 16 is a fermat power and inspecting implementations here, I see that they would produce 11112 as the result for 7 ⊗ 16
(Also, the definitions require reasoning about infinities of negative numbers but the task includes no discussion of how that is handled.)
--Rdm (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Which implementations produce 11112? Every one that I see that displays 7 ⊗ 16 has 112 for the result. Unless you are including the 7 ⊗ 15 result (11) in there? --Thundergnat (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, that was my problem. Yes, I did not notice that those two columns had been merged in the display. Thanks.