Hello Riley! [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J. Riley Bryant) wrote:
> My math is a bit rusty, so I wanted people to double- > check any mistakes I may have made... Looks like math is ok. >= 0.99999999988148537165638680164463 Yes, and probability of failure is less than 1e-107 for 1..1e7 loop. > Now the pertinent question: > > Does a solution with this probability *really* violate rule #3? > I would wager that it's more likely that our "perfect" computer > would get struck by lightening than our output not being correct. > And what if we were able to generate permutations 1e100 times? This question worries me too. Ton, please clarify. > P.s. - Mtve - Sorry to message you directly. I seem to be having > major problems posting to the newsgroup. Is it just me or is this > universally true? If this doesn't go through, would you mind > posting this message for me? I reply to your message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] via nntp (many thanks to Ask!) But yes, mail seems too unreliable nowadays. Maybe I'll set up some online forum. And there is always #perlgolf channel on ircnet, where every golfer gets op :) > P.p.s - mtve My solution in fact may suffer from genrule #2, its approximate run time of worst case on Pentium 100 is around 3 days while content length was 4. Congratulations to Juho, who is the true winner of this golf if we drop cheaters :) -- Mtv Europe
