From: Kero Date: 2005-07-17T16:55:53+09:00 Subject: Re: [QUIZ] Sampling (#39) >> PS: Just for the record, if someone implemented a simplified approach which >> took a random number on each interval of 200 numbers in the original >> range, I >> would have to say that was the wrong approach (or, maybe more accurately, >> I would hope that I had specified the problem well enough so that such was >> 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 > solution. Clearly here, the more creative solution is orders of magnitude > faster than the "original sought for answer". Sure, this is a quiz, and you > want people to do something specific, but I also look at these kinds of > things as a way to flex my mental muscles. I think it is a lovely way to catch people not implementing specifications. Plenty of people that don't understand specifications, but implement "something" anyway. Including their own tests. Go on, point them to their faults. You'll have to find the fault first... It usually gets worse when threading or random numbers are involved. This quiz is being useful in more aspects then I could ever have dreamed :) Which isn't to say I don't like "creative solutions". I work at a research department, I make my living from them :) > Sometimes, the "best" solution > _is_ the fastest solution, and I for one don't think you should fault a > solution that was within the confines of the problem but didn't exactly > mimic the answer the question poser had in mind. I think we got a clear definition of random by now. I doubt this 'binning' solution works when MEMBERS approaches LIMIT :) (if 2 out of 3 always includes member 1 (or 3), you would get suspicous after a while, wouldn't you?). +--- Kero ------------------------- kero@chello@nl ---+ | all the meaningless and empty words I spoke | | Promises -- The Cranberries | +--- M38c --- http://members.chello.nl/k.vangelder ---+