Talk:Arbitrary-precision integers (included): Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
:The task notes address this. Why do you think them inadequate? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 19:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
:The task notes address this. Why do you think them inadequate? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 19:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
First of all, the task should be redefined to ''enforce computations during the run time'', because 5**(4**(3**2)) can be precomputed or computed in a compile time (esp. in Haskell-like). Secondly, there is no need to say "do not submit an implementation of arbitrary precision arithmetic". Program MUST use some kind "arbitrary precision arithmetic" (20 digits at least) - either an internal feature or an external module/library. Finally, see "pure C solution" - it is ''ugly, but it SOLVE'' the problem. Therefore the note "this example is incorrect" is not justified. |
First of all, the task should be redefined to '''enforce computations during the run time''', because 5**(4**(3**2)) can be precomputed or computed in a compile time (esp. in Haskell-like). Secondly, there is no need to say "do not submit an implementation of arbitrary precision arithmetic". Program MUST use some kind "arbitrary precision arithmetic" (20 digits at least) - either an internal feature or an external module/library. Finally, see "pure C solution" - it is '''ugly, but it SOLVE''' the problem. Therefore the note "this example is incorrect" is not justified. |
||
--[[User:Anonymous31415927|Anonymous31415927]] ([[User talk:Anonymous31415927|talk]]) 12:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC) |
--[[User:Anonymous31415927|Anonymous31415927]] ([[User talk:Anonymous31415927|talk]]) 12:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC) |
||