Revision as of 00:01, 16 June 2015 (view source) rosettacode>Paddy3118 (→‎Hostile task requirement?: Vote!) ← Older edit		Revision as of 04:20, 16 June 2015 (view source) Rdm (talk \| contribs) m (→‎Hostile task requirement?) Newer edit →
Line 20: ::::::: No, I'm not saying (or implying) that I didn't read about the failure, and I have read the Rosetta Code task's requirements.   It says to print (essentially) 5,000 results.   -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 22:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC) === What to do? === :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] Line 26 ⟶ 28: :--[[User:Paddy3118\|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118\|talk]]) 22:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC) :: Well... ~~I've documented the algorithm I'm using in the J entry, and... 16384 has a cycle length of 14, which takes less than a millisecond for me to compute (though~~ in general the cycle length for this task for a sequence of unique values of length 2^N should be N). So even if you brute force it, that form of the task shouldn't take that long. --[[User:Rdm\|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm\|talk]]) 22:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC) :::'''Who would object''' to my suggested change and why? I did not start the draft task or do a language implementation but the task as written could be improved by defining drastically shorter output requirements. --[[User:Paddy3118\|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118\|talk]]) 00:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC) :::: I cannot think of any grounds for objection to shortening the sequence. Though for a decent workout, perhaps the sequence should be factorial values: 2 6 24 120 720 5040? --[[User:Rdm\|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm\|talk]]) 04:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Perfect shuffle: Difference between revisions

Talk:Perfect shuffle (view source)

Revision as of 04:20, 16 June 2015