And requiring y= for some problems is especially stupid, because then how do I know if they want y= or f(x)=. For horizontal asymptotes y= might be more obvious, but now that I know I'm dealing with a badly implemented auto-grading thing I'll be paranoid for the next 78 problems
I was afraid last year that I'd have teachers who are just tech-savvy enough to set up auto grading but not tech-savvy enough to make sure that stuff like this doesn't happen, but luckily almost none of them knew how to set up auto grading ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And I've also not been paying attention in class for the last week or so due to Tanks and other projects, so I'm not super sure about how to do the 14 pages of homework I also have
(Which is my fault since I've put those off for the last two weeks)
But at least I've finished my four history assignments I'd been procrastinating
"let's be nice to the students this year and not take point off for late work" is the worst policy of all time
At first, I thought the school district was being really nice by letting us turn stuff in whenever, giving us 50% for turning in literally anything, letting you negotiate to magically get a better grade, etc., but I realize now it's probably just so it looks like the entire district's doing really well so they get better funding and stuff
@RadvylfPrograms Whoa, so if your teachers ever said "Good morning" to you, you've forgotten "good" and "morning"? :P
@pxeger ;). I usually try to adopt this to the current context as everyone uses it differently and in BQN the natural numbers include 0. It is also golfier to write than non-negative integers. I would add subscript 0 in mathematical notation though
In school I was taught that the term "whole numbers" means "non-negative integers", which is nice and short, but I've never seen that used anywhere else
I prefer "(non-)?(negative|positive) integers." It's a bit longer, but it's very clear what all four terms mean. "Integers [<>]=? 0" and "(negative|positive) integers( plus 0)?" also work, though they're a bit clunkier. "Natural numbers" doesn't communicate well which numbers are meant--to my mind, nature has plenty of negative and non-integer numbers, though I understand why it wasn't always understood that way historically.
I also vaguely recall the term "counting numbers," which I believe meant positive integers (because when you count things, you say "one, two, three..."). It's a good term for teaching kids, but I don't think it's super helpful on CGCC (not least because of the 0-indexing vs. 1-indexing question).
I was taught like: Natural numbers {1;2;3;...} Whole numbers: {-2;-1;0;1;2} Fractions (yes they called it fractions): {0;1/2;3} Rational: {-2;-1/2;0;1/2;2}
@lyxal My colleague wrote Friday that she'd send it all out "today", so I would have expected you to get the email by now. Let me know if you still haven't gotten anything, and I'll look into it further.
Task is the opposite of this one. Take a string of ASCII characters and convert it to binary equivalents separated by a space.
For example:
Hello, world!
Should be converted to
1001000 1100101 1101100 1101100 1101111 0101100 100000 1110111 1101111 1110010 1101100 1100100 100001
That's all. The ...