On 4 September 2012 14:12, Piers Cawley <pdcawley-london.0dd...@bofh.org.uk> wrote: > On 4 September 2012 14:17, Dave Cross <d...@dave.org.uk> wrote:
>> 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. No, no it has not. > 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)). Aha! A couple more bits of knowledge. Now my machine can stop dying when I run my program. The question as originally described is a starting point to deciding if someone can think logically, but it does not fully describe the problem. -- Jasper