Talk:Pascal's triangle/Puzzle: Difference between revisions
→The Go rant: moved from task page
(→Is this cheating?: 100 doors?) |
(→The Go rant: moved from task page) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
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)
: 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)
:It does look like the Go author should have discussed the quality of the task here first rather than on the task page. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 08:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:: Concur. And it does raise a fair point about the task description. The task should probably more clearly request a solver for arbitrary missing elements of Pascal's triangle (Granted, the simplest solution is to generate Pascal's Triangle for as many rows necessary, and fill in the missing bits. I don't want to say that's too simple to be interesting; for some people, that's an interesting problem to tackle. For others, it's going to be too trivial. ) --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 11:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:::The rant, moved here from the task page: —[[User:Sonia|Sonia]] 19:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The following solution is based on several observations on the task:
* The task does not ask for solutions to any generalization of the problem, only this one problem.
* The (twice) linked reference in the task description similarly does not describe any generalizations, but only this one problem.
* The talk page notes that intermediate work need not be coded, and indeed, a number of existing solutions do intermediate work.
* The entire problem is solvable with elementary algebra, thus a decision to actually code any part of the problem is arbitrary.
* Any part coded is not only done frivolously, but represents unnecessary chances for errors.
* Skills needed to develop this solution are prerequisite to any other solution. No other solution is easier.
* The task does not specify program output. This program provides the solution to the problem in a form that is clear to anyone wishing to further adapt the program to their needs.
<lang go>package main
func main() {
// bottom row given: [X] [11] [Y] [4] [Z]
// given sum relation of bricks,
// next row up: [x+11] [y+11] [y+4] [z+4]
// middle row: [x+y+22] [2y+15] [y+z+8]
// given brick=40 and relation y=x+z,
// middle row: [40] [2y+15] [3y-10]
// continuing sum relation of bricks,
// next row up: [2y+55] [5y+5]
// top brick: [7y+60]
// given top brick = 151,
// 7y = 91: y = 13
// x + y = 18: x = 5
// z = y - x: z = 8
}</lang>
| |||