Anonymous user
Talk:Zeckendorf number representation: Difference between revisions
Talk:Zeckendorf number representation (view source)
Revision as of 23:13, 23 October 2012
, 11 years ago→Consensus on the sequence: how can it be generic?
(→Consensus on the sequence: added comments on a non-Fibonacci series solution as well as generic solutions. -- ~~~~) |
(→Consensus on the sequence: how can it be generic?) |
||
Line 28:
: It should be noted that this task can be solved without using a Fibonacci sequence. See the '''generic''' example in the REXX section. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 21:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
:: That doesn't make sense at all. Try the sequence 1, 2, 4 ... 2^n, how do you make a representation that's garanteed to have no 11s? --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 23:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
: Also, the '''general''' REXX solution solves the task for '''N''' Zeckendorf numbers, which merely generates a Fibonacci sequence whose last numer is greater or equal to '''N''' (instead of hard coding six Fibonacci numbers). I think it'd be a better task to list up to '''N''' Zeckendorf numbers, with 20 being the default. That way, no short cuts would be used in the examples and thereby hiding the limitations of the programs. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 21:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
| |||