Anonymous user
Talk:Perfect shuffle: Difference between revisions
→Hostile task requirement?: added more comments.
(→Hostile task requirement?: Yea.) |
(→Hostile task requirement?: added more comments.) |
||
Line 14:
:::: "lines"? That's not really the problem. The task does however require 5000 numbers for the result (more if you include labeling - but that is left open). --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 22:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
::::: Yes, I meant lines (of "output" to the terminal)--- and the ability to peruse the results in some meaningful way. I had thought that the printing/including the number of requested results (or lines) is the problem, else why would people elide the results? If 5,000 numbers are just listed in word-wrap form (or even just one line), how can anybody read such a mass of numbers (or even verify any particular number)? Adding labels or some sort of index (rank) number would definitely help in the readability, but it would add to the (huge) bulk. I would hope everyone could see the futility of including (printing) such a list for each entry as part of this Rosetta Code task, other than it being an exercise to see if the programming entries could create 5,000 numbers. However, if the task says to print 5,000 results, I'll change my entry to include them. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 22:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
:Seems like a flaw to me to. Why not edit the task to ask for shuffle counts for 2^(2*n) for n = 1..7 i.e only for counts: [4, 16, 64, 256, 1024, 4096, 16384]
| |||