Anonymous user
Talk:Rep-string: Difference between revisions
m
→Clarification: added rebuttal. -- ~~~~
(→Reason for update request: 00 and 11 are rep strings) |
m (→Clarification: added rebuttal. -- ~~~~) |
||
Line 16:
:::''' '101' is ''not'' a rep-string''' as '10' does not appear at least twice. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 09:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
:::: Yes it is. Repeat "10" twice, then truncate to the original length (which is three), that yields "101". There is nothing in the task description that says the repeat string has to ''appear'' in the result string, as in the case when the string is replicated, then truncated to the original length. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 19:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
::By the way, almost all programming examples have incorrect output, showing strings to be non-reps, whilest in fact, they are. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 07:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
::: To get sane output, you need the restriction that ''the repeating unit must be no more than half of the length of the input string''. Otherwise, the longest “repeating” unit is potentially the whole string, which is nuts. Any decision procedure for this needs to be able to reject a string as well as to find the repetition if it exists. (I'll update the task description momentarily.) –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] ([[User talk:Dkf|talk]]) 08:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
:::: A task requirement is that the repeat occur two or more times. One repeat doesn;t meet that requirement. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 19:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
==Reason for update request==
| |||