Talk:Primes - allocate descendants to their ancestors: Difference between revisions
Talk:Primes - allocate descendants to their ancestors (view source)
Revision as of 15:42, 2 March 2015
, 9 years ago→Task is ambiguous
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)
Read the task description, again. All the necessary information are stated in the description.
Line 115 ⟶ 113:
--[[User:Old man|Old man]] ([[User talk:Old man|talk]]) 08:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
: I think that the hidden information should not be hidden. Perhaps it is sufficient for the hidden information to be stated on the task page, but this hidden information is not information that I get from reading the task description in its current form.
: For example, I feel it's not clear what you mean by 'the title clearly states "allocate descendants to their ancestors", that is, each descendant is counted for 1" -- for one what?
: Still, after studying the output from your C program, I see that each descendant is counted once for each ancestor that it is a descendant of. For example, 20 is a descendant of 8 and it is also a descendant of 9, so it gets counted twice when both 8 and 9 are considered as parents. So if I set MAXPRIME and MAXPARENT to 11, in your C program, it's rather clear that 20 would be counted for 2 (as opposed to being counted as 20 in the total, for example).
: Of course, I understand that can not be what you meant. But without considerable effort spent on your code, and some time in this discussion, I would not know what you had meant. It's worth spending some time addressing the ambiguities of interpretation which necessarily arise from the use of the english language (or any language which humans have developed for speaking with each other - but in this case we are using english). There are good biological reasons for these ambiguities, and it's relatively simple to address them. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 15:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
| |||