Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile


Question 9

Posted by BlaXpydo 
Announcements Last Post
Announcement SoC Curricula 09/30/2017 01:08PM
Announcement Demarcation or scoping of examinations and assessment 02/13/2017 07:59AM
Announcement School of Computing Short Learning Programmes 11/24/2014 08:37AM
Announcement Unisa contact information 07/28/2011 01:28PM
Question 9
May 11, 2011 07:49PM
If they give us a function to prove, and they say n >= 3 (or any number, just as long as its larger than 0), can we asume the input string will always comply with this? Or should we design accordingly?

Don't be different...be the one making a difference
avatar Re: Question 9
May 11, 2011 08:30PM
I think they'd tell us what we're allowed to assume?

Maybe if it looks like they forgot the safest way would be to answer the essence of the question first, and then bring in input verification as a later add-on feature?

I mean really the course is about computability when you get to that chapter, not "machine design". The machines are just a convenient shorthand.

Certainly that's how I'd handle it. Take valid input as given, prove computability on that basis, and then come back later to stick on some input verification later if there's ever time.

And if there is time, you might as well, I suppose.
Re: Question 9
May 11, 2011 08:34PM
I think it will be safe to inform the marker (at the start of the answer) that you are assuming the correct input string is being used.

Don't be different...be the one making a difference
avatar Re: Question 9
May 11, 2011 08:37PM
And then doubly safe to afterwards come back and say "I'm trying input verification just in case, even though I think it's a load of utter codswallop, you lot forcing us to waste this precious time on things like input verification, which matter I am going to raise at the highest level ..."

Ja. Maybe the wrong kind of note could be dumb... smile
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login