Talk:Set of real numbers: Difference between revisions
→Extra Credit?
Line 50:
:::::::::: As I said before, I am doing my length calculation without any of those three. The data structure I use does not concern itself with the distinction between open and closed interval and thus is not capable of supporting is empty nor set equality nor is subset. That said, the version with empty set support does have enough information to compute length -- I'll try posting an implementation of that for comparison. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 10:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::: No, but you are using a way to iterate through the innards of the set implementation, which is what you need to implement any of the three. The reason the empty test can't be done with only the "has element" test is that a real set is uncountable, so you can't even conceptually exhaustively test a list of candadites for insideness via a (potentially infinite) loop. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 23:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::: If partial innards, which are not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the membership test part of the task, count, then yes. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 23:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::: Ok, that's done. It's more than twice as much code, from the same starting point. The number in the answer is also slightly, which surprises me. I did not think that there were enough floating point subtractions involved to accrue that big of an error. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 20:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
| |||