Subj : Re: Reversing a number
To   : comp.programming
From : Antoon Pardon
Date : Fri Sep 16 2005 12:36 pm

Op 2005-09-16, Willem schreef <willem@stack.nl>:
> 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."

.... 

> (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.)

Well I confess I didn't folow this very closely. However I was under
the impression that you introduced this algorithm into this thread.
It that is incorrect I appologize. However if that is correct,
referring to that algorithm as "your algorithm" is correct english
usage. 

-- 
Antoon Pardon

.