Anonymous user
Talk:Set of real numbers: Difference between revisions
→Extra Credit?: skip it?
(→Extra Credit?: skip it?) |
|||
Line 31:
::: The optional work requires a way to define the sets, it didn't ask you to systematically solve any equations to derive the set because that's irrelevant. The perl program I wrote didn't solve |sin(x)| = 1/2 in the program either. And, |sin(x)| = 1/2 means x = (n +/- 1/6) Pi, it's not rocket science. How much easier does it need to be? --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 00:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
:::: The issue is not that the requested numbers are not easy to find -- it's easy to solve without using the set implementation at all. But an approach that meaningfully uses the set implementation to find the lengths is hard to imagine. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 01:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
::::: It depends on your implementation. If it's not useful for finding the length of, or "iterating" the set, don't do the optional. This is expected and the optional work is optional for a reason. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 01:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
| |||