Talk:Set of real numbers: Difference between revisions
→Extra Credit?
Line 43:
:::::: Typically, "extra credit" tasks incorporate the base task. Since that apparently that is neither desired nor expected here, perhaps the "Optional Work" section should have a note that we do not need to find the set implementation useful for the "Optional Work"? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 17:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::: I see what's lacking in the mandetory part of the task now. It should have required an "is empty" check. Some normal set operations are not doable without it, such as subset (⊂). Empty check would have required some way to enumerate set content, and most of the complaints about the optional part would simply go away. As to the computing of boundary, I gave the relations in the optional task, you didn't really need to compute much other than n + 1/6. One curiosity: if intervals are easier to deal with than "sets", why not just impelement sets as intervals? --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 19:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::: I am not sure I understand your question, but I was drawing a distinction between sequences of intervals and sets of intervals. My point was that intervals seem to me to be more tractable when treated as members of sequences than when treated as members of sets. But, yes, if you ask for the ability to determine if a set is equal to the empty set then the set implementation I was using would not be adequate. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 19:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
| |||