On 4 September 2012 14:17, Dave Cross <d...@dave.org.uk> wrote: > Quoting Mr I <cub4u...@gmail.com>: > >> Consider the example I gave. How will you approach that? I bet you'd >> approach completely differently if you KNEW vedic mathematics. > > > Your example said: > > "write a function ved(n, m) that implements the 16 sutras* and uses them to > return the result" > > That's not a usable specification. The original question was: > > > "Given that fib(n) is equal to fib(n-1) + fib(n-2) write a fib function in > any language" > > Can you not see the difference? It doesn't matter that it's a well-known > mathematical sequence. The required behaviour has been specified in the > question. It could be rewritten as: > > "Given that blarg(n) is equal to blarg(n-1) + blarg(n-2) write a blarg > function in any language"
Or, in an attempt to really drive it home: blarg(n) is equal to blarg( n - 1 ) * 2 + blarg( n - 2 ) There you go. Not the Fibonacci sequence, but still a recursive definition, trivially implementable with a recursive condition given a couple more bits of knowledge (the values of blarg(0) and blarg(1)). Entirely defined within its own terms and less likely to have the smart programmer supply a non-recursive or iterative function involving the golden ratio. > And it would still be solvable. Your question isn't a specification. It > can't be solved without guesswork. What Dave said. > And besides, I don't think I'd really want to work with a programmer who > didn't know what the Fibonacci sequence is :-) I dunno. Think of the teaching opportunities :)