Re: "The art of computer programming" by Knuth
- From: Jim Spriggs <jim.sprigs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 01:28:32 +0000 (UTC)
Dave Seaman wrote:
>
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 23:50:45 GMT, New Guy wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:00:26 +0200, David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >>larhamr@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> >>
> >>> mensanator@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I would join it, although I'm not sure how keen I would be on
> >>>> solving exercises. But that remains to be seen. So go ahead and
> >>>> create it, post some seed messages to get the discussions started,
> >>>> announce it here and wait and see if there's any interest.
> >>>
> >>> The term exercises may be misleading when referring to
> >>> TAOCP. These are given rating numbers which range over:
> >>>
> >>> 00 Immediate
> >>> 10 Simple (one minute)
> >>> 20 Medium (quarter hour)
> >>> 30 Moderately hard
> >>> 40 Term project
> >>> 50 Research problem
> >>>
> >>> In my copy of "Fundamental Algorithms" which is vol 1 of
> >>> TAOCP, in the examples of problem ratings it has FLT as
> >>> a 50.
> >>
> >>It has been rated down to HM45 in mine.
>
> > HM45 does not appear in the rating scale above. Please let me know
> > what it means.
>
> HM means the solution involves higher math, and 45 is to be interpolated
> between 40 and 50 in the indicated scale.
The scale being logarithmic. To quote Knuth (2nd ed)
"By interpolation in this "logarithmic" scale, the significance of other
rating numbers becomes clear. For example, a rating of 17 would
indicate an exercise that is a bit simpler than average. Problems with
a rating of 50 that are subsequently solved by some reader may appear
with a 45 rating in later editions."
I wonder if the use of the word "average" is justified. Did Knuth
really compute the average of all his rating numbers?
--
I don't know who you are Sir, or where you come from,
but you've done me a power of good.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "The art of computer programming" by Knuth
- From: Phil Carmody
- Re: "The art of computer programming" by Knuth
- References:
- Re: "The art of computer programming" by Knuth
- From: mensanator@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: "The art of computer programming" by Knuth
- From: larhamr
- Re: "The art of computer programming" by Knuth
- From: Dave Seaman
- Re: "The art of computer programming" by Knuth
- Prev by Date: Re: Reading book about Riemann Hypothesis
- Next by Date: Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE
- Previous by thread: Re: "The art of computer programming" by Knuth
- Next by thread: Re: "The art of computer programming" by Knuth
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|