Talk:Pascal's triangle: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m moved Talk:Pascal's Triangle to Talk:Pascal's triangle |
No edit summary |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
I think that maybe all example output should follow the task description format of an isosceles triangle. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 08:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
I think that maybe all example output should follow the task description format of an isosceles triangle. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 08:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
:That's not always easy to do. I think the important part of the task is the generation of each row. We don't need to complicate it with output formatting that isn't important to the theory involved. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 18:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
:That's not always easy to do. I think the important part of the task is the generation of each row. We don't need to complicate it with output formatting that isn't important to the theory involved. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 18:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
I think the triangle looks awesome! |
|||
-Simen Berge |
Revision as of 07:19, 8 April 2010
Right Output Format?
Thw task bdescription says the tringle looks like this:
1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1
And yet, some examples are showing the easier to construct:
1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1
I think that maybe all example output should follow the task description format of an isosceles triangle. --Paddy3118 08:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's not always easy to do. I think the important part of the task is the generation of each row. We don't need to complicate it with output formatting that isn't important to the theory involved. --Mwn3d 18:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the triangle looks awesome! -Simen Berge