Re: Is it our math letting us down?


Greg Neill wrote:
"MobyDikc" <mobydikc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1139604878.801772.204770@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I propose that there is no mathematical way to take:

X = 1
dX = 3
do while .T.
X = X + dX
enddo

and derive:

x = 1 + 3y

Even though the equation clearly predicts the algorithm.


You haven't even defined the same system. In
one case you're using some unspecified iterator,
T, and in the other you've introduced a new variable,
y. But we can fix that...

The first can easily be translated to:

x0 = 1
dx = 3
T = the set of iterations
y = |T| = the cardinality of set T

then: x = x0 + dx*|T|


How does that step follow from what is given?

It seems to me that they are clearly equal, but I don't know of any
mathematical manuever that says they are.

It looks like we're just doing pattern matching.

Could you write an algorithm that does the same derivation?


Substituting the known values,

x = 1 + 3y

So what's the problem?

.

Quantcast