Talk:Primes - allocate descendants to their ancestors: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
I would highly recommend that you drop the lower limit on ancestors to 2 (because 2 is a relevant ancestor, given the results you are getting) and fix your code so it doesn't crash when you do that. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 14:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC) |
I would highly recommend that you drop the lower limit on ancestors to 2 (because 2 is a relevant ancestor, given the results you are getting) and fix your code so it doesn't crash when you do that. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 14:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC) |
||
Read the task description, again. All the necessary information are stated in the description. |
|||
Some information are clearly stated, some others are somehow hidden (i.e. a prime factor is not its own ancestor nor its own descendant). |
|||
Also, the title clearly states "allocate descendants to their ancestors", that is, each descendant is counted for 1. |
|||
46 is a descendant of 25, but 46 is also the ancestor of 129. Is this a reason to exclude 46 from the descendants of 25 ? Of course not. |
|||
Where ? Give me an example, because there is no ancestor smaller than 5. |
|||
5 has no ancestor and 1, 2, 3 and 4 do not have any ancestor nor descendant. |
|||
I think, you are out of context, I posted a task, but, I do not impose a solution. |
|||
2 is not a relevant ancestor, because 2 is not a ancestor at all. But, if you want to consider 2, 3 and 4 as ancestors, you are free to post an alternate task. |
|||
--[[User:Old man|Old man]] ([[User talk:Old man|talk]]) 08:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC) |