Quoting Jasper <jaspermcc...@gmail.com>:
On 4 September 2012 14:38, Will Crawford <billcrawford1...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 September 2012 14:27, Jasper <jaspermcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 September 2012 14:12, Piers Cawley
<pdcawley-london.0dd...@bofh.org.uk> wrote:
...
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.
The point most of us are trying to make is that a programmer who
doesn't *ask* you for those "bits of knowledge" hasn't understood the
question sufficiently :)
I think that that is probably what most of us are thinking, but the
wording that I quoted in my previous post made me wonder.
Well, when I said it was completely specified, I obviously meant that
it was specified to about the level that you could expect in the real
world :-)
Dave...
