Talk:Calkin-Wilf sequence: Difference between revisions
q0
(i'th term?) |
(q0) |
||
Line 21:
9 4/3</pre>
zeroth, and first terms are both 1. Best to do as wikepedia does and have istart at 1 for the series I think? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 00:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
: When I try this, I get 'error, ith_term has not been defined'. To be slightly less churlish, I see wp defines "starting from q1 = 1" and there simply is no "zeroth" term. A q0 of 1 is just as wrong, in fact even wronger, and I'd like to see that ith_term - if it ''is'' using the formula I see on wp and in the task description it would a) be wrong and b) not be possible without assuming a q0 of 0. In my entry I cheekily went printf(1,"The first 21 terms of the Calkin-Wilf sequence are:\n 0: 0\n") just to match everyone else. Perhaps the task could be amended to say "you can quietly assume a q0 of 0 to simplify calculations but '''do not show it'''". Lastly, when you say "seems off by one" the wikipedia page clearly links 4/3 and 9 and 3/4 and 14 so... --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 00:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
| |||