Talk:Order by pair comparisons: Difference between revisions
→New Title?
(→New Title?: On comparison questions) |
|||
Line 4:
:Hi Garbanzo, I think of the intaractive nature and the pair comparisons as being important "Order by interactive pair comparisons" might be more descriptive, but is even longer. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 19:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
::Yea, I think anything with 'interactive' would be fine. I don't think 'pair comparison' is as important in the title because the description covers it well.[[User:Garbanzo|Garbanzo]] ([[User talk:Garbanzo|talk]]) 07:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
:On comparison questions: I didn't want to restrict or dictate an algorithm to use beyond something that didn't just blindly ask comparisons on all possible pairs.I knew one way to do it, others can find better ways for their needs and languages.
:--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 19:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
::Not restricting the algorithm is good, but to me it sounded like <, =, and > were all required. Would adding duplicates be good for extra credit? That could be harder. I tried using the custom comparer in the C++ library sort on some bigger sets and got some interesting results when giving inconsistent answers (answering that red < orange < yellow < red) - I got it in a loop once. Solutions could remember previous answers given by the users. [[User:Garbanzo|Garbanzo]] ([[User talk:Garbanzo|talk]]) 07:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
==Inspiration for this task==
| |||