Talk:Pascal's triangle/Puzzle: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→The Go rant: This is the place for discussion, true.) |
(→The Go rant: And it raises a fair point.) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
: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) |
: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) |
|||
Revision as of 11:29, 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)
- It does look like the Go author should have discussed the quality of the task here first rather than on the task page. --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. ) --Michael Mol 11:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)