Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. General Programming
  3. Algorithms
  4. Find an algorithm

Find an algorithm

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Algorithms
algorithmsdebuggingregexquestionlearning
37 Posts 14 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • F fjdiewornncalwe

    ( ( d && dl ) && ( r && rl ) ) || ( (d && dl) && ( !r && !rl) ) || ( (!d && !dl) && ( r && rl ) )

    I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.

    N Offline
    N Offline
    Not Active
    wrote on last edited by
    #28

    Only 18 days after everyone else. Glad it wasn't urgentz


    I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt

    F 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • N Not Active

      What are you confused about? Perhaps you are confused that the problem had been solved 18 days ago by people how were not confused.:confused:


      I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt

      T Offline
      T Offline
      Tadeusz Westawic
      wrote on last edited by
      #29

      There are unanswered posts of my own that are months old and I would still appreciate any other point of view as long as it is mathematically valid and programmable. Are you saying my post is illegal? Take off that heavy badge once in a while. Tadeusz Westawic Sum quid sum.

      N 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • N Not Active

        Only 18 days after everyone else. Glad it wasn't urgentz


        I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt

        F Offline
        F Offline
        fjdiewornncalwe
        wrote on last edited by
        #30

        :laugh: I didn't even notice that. Man, do I suck... :-D

        I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • T Tadeusz Westawic

          There are unanswered posts of my own that are months old and I would still appreciate any other point of view as long as it is mathematically valid and programmable. Are you saying my post is illegal? Take off that heavy badge once in a while. Tadeusz Westawic Sum quid sum.

          N Offline
          N Offline
          Not Active
          wrote on last edited by
          #31

          Tadeusz Westawic wrote:

          There are unanswered posts of my own

          There is the difference. This post was answered by several people quite a long time ago.

          Tadeusz Westawic wrote:

          Are you saying my post is illegal?

          losen up and perhaps vist more often


          I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • N Not Active

            I've probably been staring at this far too long but I can't find an algorithm that will return the correct results for the code below. Anyone have some fresh ideas?

            private void Test()
            {
            Logic(false, false, false, false, false, false, false);
            Logic(false, false, false, false, true, true, true);
            Logic(false, false, false, false, true, false, false);
            Logic(false, false, true, false, true, true, false);
            Logic(false, false, true, true, true, true, true);
            }

            private void Logic(bool f, bool fl, bool d, bool dl, bool r, bool rl, bool expected)
            {
            bool result = [What algorithm goes here];

            System.Diagnostics.Debug.Assert(result == expected, "Does not match expected results");
            

            }


            I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt

            R Offline
            R Offline
            Radhakrishnan G
            wrote on last edited by
            #32

            private void Logic( bool f1, bol f2, bool f3, bool f4, bool f5, bool f6, bool expected)
            {
            bool result = ((!f1) && (!f2) && f5 && f6 && ( ((!f3) && (!f4)) || ( f3 && f4 )));
            System.Diagnostics.Debug.Assert( result == expected, "Does not match expected results" );
            }

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • N Not Active

              I've probably been staring at this far too long but I can't find an algorithm that will return the correct results for the code below. Anyone have some fresh ideas?

              private void Test()
              {
              Logic(false, false, false, false, false, false, false);
              Logic(false, false, false, false, true, true, true);
              Logic(false, false, false, false, true, false, false);
              Logic(false, false, true, false, true, true, false);
              Logic(false, false, true, true, true, true, true);
              }

              private void Logic(bool f, bool fl, bool d, bool dl, bool r, bool rl, bool expected)
              {
              bool result = [What algorithm goes here];

              System.Diagnostics.Debug.Assert(result == expected, "Does not match expected results");
              

              }


              I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt

              R Offline
              R Offline
              RobCroll
              wrote on last edited by
              #33

              yeah I know it was answered a while ago but here is a slightly more elegant algorithm bool result = (f == fl) && (d == dl) && (r == rl) ? f | d | r : false; or in a less descriptive form bool result = f == fl && d == dl && r == rl && f | d | r;

              modified on Tuesday, November 9, 2010 6:28 PM

              N 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • R RobCroll

                yeah I know it was answered a while ago but here is a slightly more elegant algorithm bool result = (f == fl) && (d == dl) && (r == rl) ? f | d | r : false; or in a less descriptive form bool result = f == fl && d == dl && r == rl && f | d | r;

                modified on Tuesday, November 9, 2010 6:28 PM

                N Offline
                N Offline
                Not Active
                wrote on last edited by
                #34

                Such a timely response :rolleyes:


                I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt

                R 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • N Not Active

                  Such a timely response :rolleyes:


                  I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt

                  R Offline
                  R Offline
                  RobCroll
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #35

                  Well I teach at college so I didn't want to think I was doing your homework for you. ;P

                  N 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • R RobCroll

                    Well I teach at college so I didn't want to think I was doing your homework for you. ;P

                    N Offline
                    N Offline
                    Not Active
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #36

                    Robert Croll wrote:

                    Well I teach at college

                    What course do you teach, procrastination?


                    I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt

                    R 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • N Not Active

                      Robert Croll wrote:

                      Well I teach at college

                      What course do you teach, procrastination?


                      I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt

                      R Offline
                      R Offline
                      RobCroll
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #37

                      :laugh: :laugh: Can I get back to you on that?

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Don't have an account? Register

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • World
                      • Users
                      • Groups