Re: x=@n3*PI
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: x=@n3*PI
In article <36A5F12E.4BCD@uh.edu>,
Fisher@uh.edu (Glenn Fisher) wrote:
] Dick Smith wrote:
] >
] > Yes, but to what purpose are we put through this game? Why is it there?
]
] It is there because the solution of the problem has many values all
] of the form returned with the arbitrary integer.
Yes, I'm aware of that, but my point was that I didn't understand why the 'n'
has to be qualified as it is. eg. taking the example from the subject line
of this thread, surely x=@n3*PI can be written just as accurately as x=n*PI?
The '@' and the 3 (in this case) are redundant and just clutter up the
answer in my opinion.
] To get the main
] solution, you can just set the integer to zero using the "|" when
] operator. Or you can get a sequence of n solutions by using "|" to
] get the @n variable the values of 0,1,2,...,n-1.
Of course, but wouldn't it be simpler to just substitute for n?
] The number attached to the @n is to differentiate it form other
] arbitrary integers in the same session or problem. It may take two
] or more arbitrary integers to represent all solutions to the problem.
I don't see this (sorry); if n is an arbitrary integer (0, 1, 2, 3, etc.)
then how is @n25 any different? I mean, @n25 can take values 0, 1, 2, 3,
etc. in just the same way. We don't need @n25, we only need n, IMHO.
Also, if I want n to increment in steps 2 (or some other step size) I can do
this by introducing 2n, etc. into my general term, which is now made more
complicated by having @n25 to look at. eg 2@n25...? Ugh! Simplicity, or
rather a lack of unnecessary complication, please.
Dick
--
=============================================================================
Dick Smith dick@risctex.demon.co.uk
Acorn Risc PC http://www.risctex.demon.co.uk
=============================================================================
Follow-Ups:
References: