Re: Quick n-th Root of BigInteger
Jan Burse wrote:
Lew schrieb:
In any event, this being a Java forum, the notation '=<' (shown nowhere
in your reference link, BTW) is rather odd, as we are used to '<='. Given
that '=<' apparently is not part of the "Set Builder" notation, how about
we stick with the Java (also C, Fortran, C++, C#, Javascript, BASIC, SQL,
Python, shell, ...) idiom?
@Lew: And here comes some education why =< is necessary. The link I
gave refers to set builder notation in the Z specification language.
And not to builder notation in a programming language.
And you couldn't say that the first four times people asked?
Instead you had to rant and curse and abuse them?
And the link you gave never mentioned '=<'.
As for "necessary", not hardly.
In a specification language the set builder notation reads:
{ variable | condition }
Since the condition can be a first order formula, it might contain
the logical implication. This is sometimes denoted by <= or =>. Therefor[e]
in mathematical specification the comparators are often
written as =< and >= so that they can be distinguished.
This problem doesn't pose itself for language such as Java that do
not have a logical implication.
And since this is Java, and not every Java programmer is intimately
familiar with Z notation, a question about the notation is natural and
should have been answered politely instead of abusively, and immediately
instead of after all the nonsense you imposed.
Go to.
--
Lew