Chris Angelico writes:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> Dennis Lee Bieber :
>>
>>> On Wed, 06 Sep 2017 10:37:42 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa
>>> declaimed the following:
>>>
Which reminds me of this puzzle I saw a couple of days ago:
1 + 4 = 5
2 +
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Dennis Lee Bieber :
>
>> On Wed, 06 Sep 2017 10:37:42 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa
>> declaimed the following:
>>
>>>
>>>Which reminds me of this puzzle I saw a couple of days ago:
>>>
>>> 1 + 4 = 5
>>> 2 + 5 = 12
>>> 3 + 6 = 21
>>> 8 + 11
Dennis Lee Bieber :
> On Wed, 06 Sep 2017 10:37:42 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa
> declaimed the following:
>
>>
>>Which reminds me of this puzzle I saw a couple of days ago:
>>
>> 1 + 4 = 5
>> 2 + 5 = 12
>> 3 + 6 = 21
>> 8 + 11 = ?
>>
>>A mathematician immediately comes up with a "wrong" answer.
On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 01:31 am, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:37 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>
>> Which reminds me of this puzzle I saw a couple of days ago:
>>
>>1 + 4 = 5
>>2 + 5 = 12
>>3 + 6 = 21
>>8 + 11 = ?
>>
>> A mathematician immediately comes up with a "wrong" a
On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 11:08 pm, Rustom Mody wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 5:59:17 PM UTC+5:30, nopsidy wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= [...]
>> Thank you,
>> -Alex Goretoy
>> [...]
Please don't quote nopsidy's spam.
He is spamming the list with multiple links to the same v
Rustom Mody writes:
> I posted it because I genuinely thought I had missed some obvious way
> of splitting a set into an (arbitrary) element and a rest without
> jumping through hoops. Evidently not
Curious, because I posted because I thought you had. Anyway, for speed
you probably just want
Gregory Ewing writes:
> Seems to me you're making life difficult for yourself (and
> very inefficient) by insisting on doing the whole computation
> with sets. If you want a set as a result, it's easy enough
> to construct one from the list at the end.
Yes, but my intent was to show that the pat
On 06/09/17 16:31, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:37 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> Which reminds me of this puzzle I saw a couple of days ago:
>>
>>1 + 4 = 5
>>2 + 5 = 12
>>3 + 6 = 21
>>8 + 11 = ?
>>
>> A mathematician immediately comes up with a "wrong" answer.
> There
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:37 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>
> Which reminds me of this puzzle I saw a couple of days ago:
>
>1 + 4 = 5
>2 + 5 = 12
>3 + 6 = 21
>8 + 11 = ?
>
> A mathematician immediately comes up with a "wrong" answer.
There are no "wrong" answers with these kinds of p
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 5:59:17 PM UTC+5:30, nopsidy wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNe1wWeaHOU&list=PLYI8318YYdkCsZ7dsYV01n6TZhXA6Wf9i&index=1
> Thank you,
> -Alex Goretoy
> http://launchpad.net/~a1g
You (Alex) are top-posting. I am not fussy. But others here can be
In any ca
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNe1wWeaHOU&list=PLYI8318YYdkCsZ7dsYV01n6TZhXA6Wf9i&index=1
Thank you,
-Alex Goretoy
http://launchpad.net/~a1g
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Rustom Mody writes:
>>Because the abstract idea of a permutation is a list (sequence)
>
> Traditio
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 4:29:56 PM UTC+5:30, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Seems to me you're making life difficult for yourself (and
> very inefficient) by insisting on doing the whole computation
> with sets. If you want a set as a result, it's easy enough
> to construct one from the list at
Seems to me you're making life difficult for yourself (and
very inefficient) by insisting on doing the whole computation
with sets. If you want a set as a result, it's easy enough
to construct one from the list at the end.
--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Ben Finney :
> r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>
>> In mathematics, every author is free to give his own definitions to
>> concepts and create his own notation.
>
> [...]
>
> For established terms in the field, an author has freedom to redefine
> those terms only to the extent tha
On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 19:07:32 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote:
> Also noteworthy here: You know more about list comprehensions than their
> inventor — Greg Ewing
And many people know more about General Relativity than Albert Einstein.
What's your point?
> [No I normally would not call Greg their inve
On Wed, 06 Sep 2017 01:31:56 +, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Steve D'Aprano writes:
>>On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 12:19 am, Rustom Mody wrote:
>>>And how do you write even the simplest assignment statement without a
>>>(mathematical) expression on the rhs?
>>name = other_name is not a mathematical expression.
On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 18:28:02 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 6:27:24 AM UTC+5:30, Steve D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 12:19 am, Rustom Mody wrote:
>>
>> > And how do you write even the simplest assignment statement without a
>> > (mathematical) expression
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 6:58:29 AM UTC+5:30, Rustom Mody wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 6:27:24 AM UTC+5:30, Steve D'Aprano wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 12:19 am, Rustom Mody wrote:
> > > What were Turing, Church, von Neumann, even Knuth by training?
> > > Mathematicians
>
r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> In mathematics, every author is free to give his own
> definitions to concepts and create his own notation.
In one trivial sense that is true. Anyone can define any term to mean
whatever they like. This is a perfectly sherbert thing to do.
In a
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 6:27:24 AM UTC+5:30, Steve D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 12:19 am, Rustom Mody wrote:
>
> > And how do you write even the simplest assignment statement without a
> > (mathematical) expression on the rhs?
>
> name = other_name
>
> is not a mathematical ex
On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 12:19 am, Rustom Mody wrote:
> And how do you write even the simplest assignment statement without a
> (mathematical) expression on the rhs?
name = other_name
is not a mathematical expression. Its giving something a new name.
name = obj.attribute
is not a mathematical expres
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 7:32:52 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
>> > Pop et al wont work with frozen sets
>> > Containment wont work with sets — what mathematicians call 'not cl
On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 7:32:52 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> > Pop et al wont work with frozen sets
> > Containment wont work with sets — what mathematicians call 'not closed'
> > All of which amounts to this that python sets ar
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> Pop et al wont work with frozen sets
> Containment wont work with sets — what mathematicians call 'not closed'
> All of which amounts to this that python sets are not really pleasant for
> math-work
Funnily enough, Python has never boasted tha
On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 6:59:11 PM UTC+5:30, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Rustom Mody writes:
>
> > On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 1:44:24 AM UTC+5:30, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >> Rustom Mody writes:
> >>
> >> > Here is some code I (tried) to write in class the other day
> >> >
> >> > The ba
Rustom Mody writes:
> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 1:44:24 AM UTC+5:30, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Rustom Mody writes:
>>
>> > Here is some code I (tried) to write in class the other day
>> >
>> > The basic problem is of generating combinations
>>
>> > Now thats neat as far as it goes but com
On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 1:44:24 AM UTC+5:30, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Rustom Mody writes:
>
> > Here is some code I (tried) to write in class the other day
> >
> > The basic problem is of generating combinations
>
> > Now thats neat as far as it goes but combinations are fundamentally set
On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 9:14:24 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Rustom Mody writes:
>
> > Here is some code I (tried) to write in class the other day
> >
> > The basic problem is of generating combinations
>
> > Now thats neat as far as it goes but combinations are fundamentally sets
>
Rustom Mody writes:
> Here is some code I (tried) to write in class the other day
>
> The basic problem is of generating combinations
> Now thats neat as far as it goes but combinations are fundamentally sets
> not lists
>
> So I thought python would do a better job
> I tried translating it to p
Since these discussions are uselessly abstract and meta
Here is some code I (tried) to write in class the other day
The basic problem is of generating combinations
Using the pascal-identity nCr + nC(r-1) = (n+1)Cr
This can be written (Haskell)
c :: Int -> Int -> Int
c n 0 = 1
c 0 (r+1)
30 matches
Mail list logo
