Anonymous user
Talk:Set of real numbers: Difference between revisions
→Extra Credit?
m (→Extra Credit?) |
|||
Line 42:
:::::: So, ok.. I have posted an implementation of the "Optional Work". Note that most of the computation was about finding the boundaries for the intervale. Note also that none of the "Optional Work" had anything to do with the implementation for the base task. Note also that (once I had the locations of the interval boundaries) the final computation was much simpler than the implementation of the base task. (I believe that this is because intervals are easier to represent as sequences than as sets, but also the initial implementation cared about inclusive vs. exclusive bounds and that's not relevant for the optional part. Another issue is that the base task gave us numeric bounds where the optional part required us to compute them.)
:::::: Typically, "extra credit" tasks incorporate the base task. Since that apparently that is neither desired nor expected here, perhaps the "Optional Work" section should have a note that we do not need to find the set implementation useful for the "Optional Work"? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 17:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::: I see what's lacking in the mandetory part of the task now. It should have required an "is empty" check. Some normal set operations are not doable without it, such as subset (⊂). Empty check would have required some way to enumerate set content, and most of the complaints about the optional part would simply go away. As to the computing of boundary, I gave the relations in the optional task, you didn't really need to compute much other than n + 1/6. One curiosity: if intervals are easier to deal with than "sets", why not just impelement sets as intervals? --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 19:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
| |||