Talk:Farey sequence: Difference between revisions
m
This is not a task, and, thus, this historical record should not show up on a report of tasks needing attention
m (This is not a task, and, thus, this historical record should not show up on a report of tasks needing attention) |
|||
| (15 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 20:
I got a "marked as incorrect" flag:
{{incorrect|J| <br> First and last Farey terms aren't expressed as fractions as per the definition, <br> no terms shown are expressed as fractions, <br> (see the '''C''' programming example's output as an example). <br> }} {{omit from|J}}
Here's an example:
Line 58:
: Acts of civil disobedience (such as I am engaged in here) probably deserve some discussion. My stance - that what I have provided is mathematically equivalent to what is being displayed. The order is equivalent, the values are equivalent. The only thing that is not equivalent is the display. And yet, none are truly equivalent to the task display (which is not plain ascii).
: Anyways, If you are comfortable adding a format requirement to the task description, I'll be comfortable complying with that format requirement. It's only a short line of code (but that pretty much doubles the amount of code I'd need for this task, and removes the motivation to document the associated language features). And, I will also remove the documentation
: If you are not comfortable adding a format requirement to the task description, if the only motivation is style, I'd prefer to leave it like it is.
: Thanks! --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 17:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:: The motivation was never style, let alone the ''only'' motivation, it's form and content which implies meaning. Please re-read the definition of the starting and ending values of a Farey sequence: they are the fraction '''0/1''' and the fraction '''1/1'''. This isn't style, this is the definition. '''0''' and '''1''' aren't fractions. The Farey sequences are all fractions, including the border terms. I don't see a need to add verbage that the programming examples need to conform to that definition, it 'is' the definition, and that should be enough to cause conformity from the examples' outputs. But, if you feel the need for a special requirement (or more verbage) for a particular language (or just in general), then please feel free to add it if that's what it takes to make your example correct. I don't see your adding a special requirement (as a tidying up thingy) is a stumbling block. If that's what it takes to clarify the issue, then I wish you'd add whatever language makes it clearer. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 18:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
::: Indeed, when I look up the definition of "fraction" I see "a numerical quantity that is not a whole number (e.g., 1/2, 0.5)" -- but this would mean that 0/1 and 1/1 are not fractions, because these represent whole numbers.
::: Possibly the concept you are trying to describe needs a few qualifying words to distinguish it from this definition? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 06:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::: "The" definition is not the only definition of a fraction, indeed, the common usage is: a fraction if any part of a unit. That ''any part'' may, I believe, be the ''whole part''. Also, another point is that an ''improper fraction'' is still a fraction. I certainly don't want to start a mathematical debate on the one true definition of a fraction --- I defer to what others have defined what a Farey sequence is (and, apparently, what it looks like) --- or, at least, how the terms are depicted --- and most important, how the end terms are depicted (defined by fiat). Perhaps we are getting hung up on what a fraction is, rather than what a fraction looks like (or is depicted) --- at least, as far as a Farey sequence is often depicted. Farey sequences are terms that look/appear/resemble fractions, in that there is what appears to be a numerator and a denominator, and furthermore, their equivalent values aren't used --- you don't see '''0 .25 1/3 .5 2/3 .75 1''' as being depicted in (or as) a Farey sequence. It doesn't matter to me if a solidus is used or some kind of horizontal bar is between the numerator and denominator, ... as long as the Farey term ''looks'' like they are part of the Farey sequence. Since HTML code (or plain text) is commonly used on Rosetta Code, there is nothing wrong with "plain" ASCII characters being used. The beginning and ending terms are defined to be the value '''0''' and '''1''', denoted by the fractions (or glyphs) '''0/1''' and '''1/1''' (this is the wording the Wikipedia entry uses in its definition of a ''Farey sequence''. Another definition that I like is the Wolfram MathWorld (TM) entry. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 07:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
:::: There's a fine line between a numerator and a denominator. -- Anonymous
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
So we are asked to renounce centuries of mathematics that have taught us that 0/1=0 and 1/1=1, just to please someone who wants to really write 0/1 and 1/1, just for the heck of it. And while some languages have a builtin, standard and idiosyncratic way of expressing something, we are asked to replace this simplicity by some ugly hack, just to print 0/1 and 1/1. Brilliant. Sometimes I can understand we want some very special output, but here the task is to cumpute numbers, requiring to renounce the sensible output is... well, brilliant. By the way it's precisely to prevent such a brilliant reaction that I wrote [[Matrix chain multiplication]] to leave some flexibility. [[User:Eoraptor|Eoraptor]] ([[User talk:Eoraptor|talk]]) 17:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
: No, nobody is asking anyone to renounce centuries of mathematics. This Rosetta Code task is to compute and display Farey sequence(s), and also to count the terms in some sequences. The displaying the numbers '''0''', '''0.5''', '''1''' (with or without the commas) is <u>not</u> the method used to show a Farey sequence. This task doesn't ask to compute numbers (''per se''), but to specifically compute a <u>Farey sequence</u> The defined format is: '''0/0''', '''1/2''', '''1/1''' (with or without the commas) is the standard and defined format, although the use of a solidus is the more conventional method where the use of HTML within a computer programming language is impossible or impractical. When using HTML, a horizontal line is most often used (to separate the numerator from the denominator), as in the case of this Rosetta Code task's preamble. If you want to push your boulder up a hill, complain to all the authors, textbooks, and wiki sites that define a Farey sequence as used here on this Rosetta Code task. But when complaining here on Rosetta Code, it helps to actually discuss things and ask questions, and not use inflammatory rhetoric. The discussion will go much easier if one doesn't use such sarcasm, the use of which pretty much shuts down a meaningful or productive conversation. Whether you think the output is ugly (and a hack), that is the defined and standard method of showing a Farey sequence. I've re-read the Wikipedia and MathWorld™ entries, nobody on the Wiki sites has complained about ugliness or it being a hack. If you are creating Rosetta Code tasks to avoid "brilliant" reactions, you're going to be disappointed. The requirements of this task weren't just thought up ''for the heck of it'' (or just to please me). I've done the research from more than a few sites, and I didn't just throw in some arbitrary requirements to cause everyone to renounce (their) sensible output. I know it is simpler to write/display a '''zero''' and a '''one''' instead of the standard ''end terms'' for a Farey sequence, but this isn't the place to tilt at windmills. Rosetta Code is a pretty good place to discuss such topics, but to be productive, it would help immensely if you would behave more cordially and refrained from such rhetoric which makes it difficult to have a productive discourse. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 21:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
==Parts of formulae here now invisible to many browsers==
Parts of various formulae on this task page have become invisible to many browsers (all those - the majority - which display the graphic file rather than processing the MathML directly), as a result of 'tidying and spacing' edits made on 00:37, 22 May 2016. One of the issues may be an attempt at cosmetic introduction of redundant white space around Latex expressions inside <math> tags. This white space is not currently expected by the MediaWiki processor, and leads to the generation of syntactically ill-formed HTML. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 13:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
: This one doesn't respond to immediate First Aid. I can see why an attempt was made to improve its appearance, though the edits that were made unfortunately hid the Farey sequence itself from most browsers.
: Even before the 22 May 2016 edits, the formulae, though visible, were oddly prefixed by a fragment of undigested LaTeX code ('''\textit'''). Perhaps we should just revert this, for the moment, to its 21 May 2016 condition (at least the task description formulae were visible at that stage), and then aim to fix the undigested \textit tag (if possible) next ? [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 18:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
:: For the moment I have gone ahead and restored the visibility of the sequence formulae to Chrome IE/Edge and Safari, at the expense of also reintroducing an earlier glitch - a visible LaTeX fragment.
:: My guess is that restored visibility at the price of a a bit of visual noise, is better than no noise at the price of complete invisibility to most browsers. Please advise if you take a different view. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 22:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
| |||