Anonymous user
Talk:Set of real numbers: Difference between revisions
→Extra Credit?: Zero finding is big.
m (→Extra Credit?) |
(→Extra Credit?: Zero finding is big.) |
||
Line 26:
::Nevertheless, finding the zeros of an arbitrary computation has little to do with this task. The easiest way of solving the extra credit in a language that does not already implement the required zero finding involves manipulation of the underlying expressions by the programmer -- something that can be easier to do outside of the context of set notation. Though it's true that the set implementation might be used to determine which of the regions bounded by the zeros are in the set and which of those reason are outside of the set.
::Put differently, it's a modularity violation. Simple zero finding algorithms, like hill climbing, are going to be baffled by the interface provided by set membership -- there is no slope. So that pushes the implementation of this algorithm inside the set implementation. But zero finding becomes arbitrarily complex when presented with arbitrary computations. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 10:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Actually, as written, the zero finding is part of the task, which I agree does seem like a large task in itself. Maybe the optional part of the task should be made easier?
:::How about the optional task being changed to a description of what the length ''is'', followed by "find the length of the set formaed by <combination of ~5 simple sets>" ? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 16:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
| |||