Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 12:00:47PM -0800, Danny Yoo wrote: >> Here's a response I sent to Srinivas yesterday to further explain why >> a balanced binary tree is probably overkill for the "largest >> denomination" selection problem. (I didn't realize that I had not >> sent the following to the list.) > [...] >> So there are several crazy avenues we can take to over-optimize this >> problem. Just to make it clear: I think sticking to a simple linear >> scan makes the most sense. Everything else just seems to try to make >> the problem harder than it deserves to be, akin to trying to take the >> size of a rectangle via integration. >> >> http://homepage.usask.ca/~blb230/Math_Comics/Calculus_Comic_files/image001.gif > > I'm glad you've forwarded the message to the list, because I love that > comic. The clever thing is that it actually gets the maths right too. > Some of the notation is a bit strange compared to what I'm used to > (I've never seen anyone use a bare integral sign before, with no > integrand),
That's not a bare integral sign, that's a vertical bar as in formula (12) of http://www.mathe-online.at/mathint/int/i.html The page is in German, sorry; the operator seems to be called "evaluated at" in English. > and I think he skipped a line, but that's definitely one to > keep. _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
