Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 139:
::I gave the EB text because I consider it far worse than our article: they start out with saying "in a finite number of steps" which is wrong; then they enter the topic of table lookups for finite problems which is completely besides the point, and then they go right into primes and gcd's without a single example algorithm. And I don't find the definition "systematic procedure that produces—in a finite number of steps—the answer to a question or the solution of a problem" any better than "well-defined method or procedure for solving a problem, usually a problem in mathematics or otherwise relating to the manipulation of information". [[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]] 02:45 Oct 9, 2002 (UTC)
:::Whoa! You threw me. Why do you say "in a finite number of steps" is wrong. They are not implying a fixed number of steps, only a finite number. It is common to require that an algorithm (not every computational procedure) terminate. Since the steps are discrete, that kind of means you can count them, and when the algorithm terminates given a particular input, you can read the counter. Any example of sorting, for example, given a finite input (also a requirement in most definitions of algorithm) had better be one that terminates on any valid input or we would throw it out as an algorithm for sorting. --[[User:Orcmid|Orcmid]] 02:19, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
:Well, as the saying goes, "There's no accounting for tastes." -- [[User:Isis|isis]] 03:03 Oct 9, 2002 (UTC)
| |||