Subj : Re: Reversing a number
To   : comp.programming
From : Willem
Date : Fri Sep 16 2005 12:12 pm

Antoon wrote:
) Op 2005-09-16, Willem schreef <willem@stack.nl>:
)> For your information, this is the algorithm:
)>
)>   f(x) = x * (10^trunc(log10(x)+1)+1)
)
)> No strings.  Your claim that 'the problem definition involves strings'
)> implies automatically that 'the solution involves strings' is unfounded.
)
)> Unless you claim that these numbers are actually strings (see below).
)
) You are working with number coded strings.

Ah.  And now, we go way back to where this discussion started.

The claim was something like:
  "This algorithm is essentially converting a number to a string."

If you claim that the numbers used are actually number coded strings,
then 'converting a number to a string' must mean 'converting the encoding
from number encoding to string encoding'.

Which the algorithm in question does *not* do.  In your view it treats
numbers as strings, but no actual conversion takes place.

So, after all that discussion (all of which just served to clarify your
standpoint on what is and is not a string), the original claim is still
false.  Sheesh.

(Yes, I know, you didn't make that original claim.  But by your own
 arguments, it is now 'your claim', because you stepped into the
 discussion on the defending side.)


SaSW, Willem
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

.