Talk:Pancake numbers: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Talk:Pancake numbers (view source)

Revision as of 18:42, 9 March 2021

938 bytes added , 3 years ago

→‎Everything is wrong

Anonymous user

rosettacode>Monarchdodra

Revision as of 16:42, 9 March 2021 (view source) Petelomax (talk \| contribs) (→‎Everything is wrong) ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 18:42, 9 March 2021 (view source) rosettacode>Monarchdodra (→‎Everything is wrong)
(3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 8: Even if it’s right, I question the point of such providing such a solution. It’s mostly reverse-engineered guess-work from a solution generated by actual exhaustive search. Could we purge the page to only keeping solutions that actually find the solutions through exhaustive search? [[User:Monarchdodra\|Monarchdodra]] ([[User talk:Monarchdodra\|talk]]) 12:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC) : As per https://oeis.org/history?seq=A058986 the sequence was changed Dec 5th 2020. I've added a modified version. If everyone agrees and someone marks my entry along with everyone else's as incorrect, I'll replace the original. : Scroll to the bottom of https://oeis.org/A058986 (from which b058986.txt is automatically built) and you'll find "Last modified March 9 10:39 EST 2021", clearly someone has just changed it. Just above that you'll find "Simon Singh's blog gives values for a(18) and a(19). It is not clear if these have been proved to be correct.", you can make of that what you will. Anyway, I've addded a modified version. : The suggestion there is no point in a fast estimate method is frankly outrageously ridiculous. Sure it needs a caveat (as I tried to put on the Phix entry), maybe in this case it should go in the task description itself. Besides, since the whole point of RC is to compare languages, a task that allows comparison of both fast and exhaustive approaches has more merit than just exhaustive. --[[User:Petelomax\|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax\|talk]]) 16:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC) :: I’m fine with a “fast estimate” approximation if it’s somewhat clearly marked as such. As it stands, you could write a pretty interesting translation DAG from this page. It actually took me a while to go C++ -> C -> Go -> Phix. It also took me a while to realize that the algorithm was just that. It took reading through the Phix description to realize that the Julia solution (translated from Go), was actually not a formal solution. :: I’d be fine if the description allowed a “2 problems” kind of question, where it asks for “a fast approximation”, and then “an exhaustive search” as extra credit. This would also encourage more creative algorithms that for finding an approximation. :: As as it stands, it feels to me that every solution here is just parroting your original approximation, without really understanding the how or why. :: PS: Thanks for this history page: That’s what I had supposed had happened, but I thought the change would have been listed in the “EXTENSIONS” part [[User:Monarchdodra\|Monarchdodra]] ([[User talk:Monarchdodra\|talk]]) 18:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)