From: Brad Wilson <dotnetguy@...>
Date: 2005-07-17T09:39:46+09:00
Subject: Re: [QUIZ] Sampling (#39)

------=_Part_5859_517123.1121560729718
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 7/16/05, Randy Kramer <rhkramer@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> PS: Just for the record, if someone implemented a simplified approach=20
> which
> took a random number on each interval of 200 numbers in the original=20
> range, I
> would have to say that was the wrong approach (or, maybe more accurately,=
=20
> I
> would hope that I had specified the problem well enough so that such was=
=20
> not
> an acceptable approach).


I feel the exact opposite, as it turns out.

Often times, I find it more interesting when people find the more creative=
=20
solution. Clearly here, the more creative solution is orders of magnitude=
=20
faster than the "original sought for answer". Sure, this is a quiz, and you=
=20
want people to do something specific, but I also look at these kinds of=20
things as a way to flex my mental muscles. Sometimes, the "best" solution=
=20
_is_ the fastest solution, and I for one don't think you should fault a=20
solution that was within the confines of the problem but didn't exactly=20
mimic the answer the question poser had in mind.

- Brad

------=_Part_5859_517123.1121560729718--