![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackWoo! With the 2n[1] combination, my output matches the reference output. There was nothing inherently wrong after all, just n annoying misconfigurations. I can now go home, have some cereal for breakfast(I was going to do some shopping at lunchtime and get a sandwich, but didn't get round to it) and cook dinner for 7ish.
In other news, I type at 60 wpm when I type fast. Which is often faster then I can think. But it's not quite fair because I'm doing two fingered and I'm a bit more accurate when I look at the keyboard as well as the screen, but in real life don't have beeps to tell my when I've made an error, except when it's a big error, like misbuying a fire alarm.
[1] Not that I tried all of them. Some of the time you can tell something is wrong and eliminate up to 2n-1 possibilities at a sroke. But sometimes different failure modes are near impossible to tell apart.
In other news, I type at 60 wpm when I type fast. Which is often faster then I can think. But it's not quite fair because I'm doing two fingered and I'm a bit more accurate when I look at the keyboard as well as the screen, but in real life don't have beeps to tell my when I've made an error, except when it's a big error, like misbuying a fire alarm.
[1] Not that I tried all of them. Some of the time you can tell something is wrong and eliminate up to 2n-1 possibilities at a sroke. But sometimes different failure modes are near impossible to tell apart.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-25 05:26 pm (UTC)That was the general intention. It may not have been meaningful. But, like, you have n things, and no good way of telling which is the problem. Then you find the bit in the docs which says thing1 is wrong. You've halved the problem. But you might end up trying four or eight things instead of trying to deduce which problem did what to the output.
BTW, 2<sup>n</sup> works...
Doh, I just changed that. Too much bb, and too many footnotes. At least is was clear.