Anonymous user
Talk:Prime conspiracy: Difference between revisions
→Propose change in output format: added a couple of comments.
(→Propose change in output format: added a couple of comments.) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 93:
</pre>
And frequencies should be calculated separately for each starting digit, so the 4 frequencies for each digit should sum up to 100%. Also add the total percentage for the four transitions together for each digit.
:: The phrase "10000 first primes" now isn't quite true, as some (low) primes are ignored to "simplify" things. I find the output (above) less intuitive than a straight/simple vertical list (and with no lower limits on what primes are chosen). And the comment (below) about magnifying the code size and complexity shouldn't to be taken lightly. I see the requirement to use a horizontal format that will be mucking up the task's clarity and brevity. People can read and comprehend a vertical list a lot better than a horizontal list, even though the horizontal list is shorter (as far as vertical spacing goes). I vote '''no''', as readability is more important (in my eyen). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
::: '''no''' vote recorded. About low primes, we could reword it as "10000 first primes above 5 (or 10)".
::: Personally, I'm lost in the vertical output; with the table I can easily follow the diagonal. -- [[User:WillNess|WillNess]] ([[User talk:WillNess|talk]]) 20:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
This way the results are much more visually apparent. -- [[User:WillNess|WillNess]] ([[User talk:WillNess|talk]]) 13:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
:::: If you're referring to the vertical list in the task's preamble, I agree with you. A little whitespace between the changes of (each changed) last-digit would help immensely (as I did for the REXX example). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
: I am not seeing anything notable visually jump out at me with that presentation. And while this would make the results more vertically compact, it would also significantly increase the code size (perhaps by an order of magnitude, in some cases). So while it is a cute idea, I am not sure it's worth having everyone redo their entries for this.
:: Ditto that last remark (as far as being visually apparent). A vertical format is much easier to peruse. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
: Plus, of course, this presentation hides the quirk that originally motivated this task. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 14:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Line 107 ⟶ 116:
::::: Put me down for "abstaining from the vote", actually. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 18:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
:::::: Updated votes: YES: 1, NO: 0, ABSTAIN: 1. -- [[User:WillNess|WillNess]] ([[User talk:WillNess|talk]]) 19:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
:::::: Updated votes: YES: 1, NO: 1, ABSTAIN: 1. -- [[User:WillNess|WillNess]] ([[User talk:WillNess|talk]]) 20:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
| |||