Talk:Pascal's triangle/Puzzle: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Is this cheating?: 100 doors?) |
(→The Go rant: new section) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Is it ok to work out intermediate equations yourself and input those instead of the pyramid? --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 21:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC) |
Is it ok to work out intermediate equations yourself and input those instead of the pyramid? --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 21:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
: See rationalization of [[100 doors]]? --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 21:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC) |
: See rationalization of [[100 doors]]? --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 21:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
== The Go rant == |
|||
The first Go solution lists a blank program after much protesting, saying that this problem is easily solved by hand thus not worth programming for. It ignored the fact that a human with a pencil and stack of paper is (more than) Turing complete, thus by the same logic nothing is ever worthy of a program. I think it's really uncalled for. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 06:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 06:20, 20 July 2011
Problem with Python csp library
The downloaded library relied on a utils.unique() function which is not part of the utils standard library. I had to edit the source of csp.py to use set() instead. --Paddy3118 17:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Is this cheating?
Is it ok to work out intermediate equations yourself and input those instead of the pyramid? --Mwn3d 21:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- See rationalization of 100 doors? --Michael Mol 21:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The Go rant
The first Go solution lists a blank program after much protesting, saying that this problem is easily solved by hand thus not worth programming for. It ignored the fact that a human with a pencil and stack of paper is (more than) Turing complete, thus by the same logic nothing is ever worthy of a program. I think it's really uncalled for. --Ledrug 06:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)