Oh, I see. I was assuming in the second step that you could make X the new Y but in fact its adjacency to a fourth vertex does propagate the changes around the pentagon. I was thinking I could keep the other two numbers unchanged.
I'll have to think about this some more. On 5/25/06, Miodrag Milenkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sorry, haven't even noticed the last mistake. you can't do what you did in the last step, you can only apply a transformation centered on a negative number. in the last step you are starting with y = 1. even though one transformation involves only three adjacent numbers, the total number of vertices does matter. On 5/25/06, Devon McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I only looked at three numbers because that's all you have to consider for a > given > transformation. Just use the other 2 numbers to make the total sum > 0, e.g. > the > other 2 numbers are 1 & 2. > > On 5/25/06, Miodrag Milenkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > hmmm, not corresponding to the problem as stated on two counts: > > > > 1. there are only three numbers > > 2. the sum is not > 0 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > > > > -- > Devon McCormick > ^me^ at acm. > org is my > preferred e-mail > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
-- Devon McCormick ^me^ at acm. org is my preferred e-mail ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
