**⚠️ Warning: This is a draft ⚠️**

This means it might contain formatting issues, incorrect code, conceptual problems, or other severe issues.

If you want to help to improve and eventually enable this page, please fork RosettaGit's repository and open a merge request on GitHub.

==Problem with Python csp library== The downloaded library relied on a utils.unique() function which is not part of the utils standard library. I had to edit the source of csp.py to use set() instead. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 17:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== Is this cheating? ==

Is it ok to work out intermediate equations yourself and input those instead of the pyramid? --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 21:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC) : See rationalization of [[100 doors]]? --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 21:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

== The Go rant ==

The first Go solution lists a blank program after much protesting, saying that this problem is easily solved by hand thus not worth programming for. It ignored the fact that a human with a pencil and stack of paper is (more than) Turing complete, thus by the same logic nothing is ever worthy of a program. I think it's really uncalled for. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 06:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

:It does look like the Go author should have discussed the quality of the task here first rather than on the task page. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 08:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC) :: Concur. And it does raise a fair point about the task description. The task should probably more clearly request a solver for arbitrary missing elements of Pascal's triangle (Granted, the simplest solution is to generate Pascal's Triangle for as many rows necessary, and fill in the missing bits. I don't want to say that's too simple to be interesting; for some people, that's an interesting problem to tackle. For others, it's going to be too trivial. ) --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 11:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC) :::The rant, moved here from the task page: —[[User:Sonia|Sonia]] 19:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC) The following solution is based on several observations on the task:

- The task does not ask for solutions to any generalization of the problem, only this one problem.
- The (twice) linked reference in the task description similarly does not describe any generalizations, but only this one problem.
- The talk page notes that intermediate work need not be coded, and indeed, a number of existing solutions do intermediate work.
- The entire problem is solvable with elementary algebra, thus a decision to actually code any part of the problem is arbitrary.
- Any part coded is not only done frivolously, but represents unnecessary chances for errors.
- Skills needed to develop this solution are prerequisite to any other solution. No other solution is easier.
- The task does not specify program output. This program provides the solution to the problem in a form that is clear to anyone wishing to further adapt the program to their needs.

package main func main() { // bottom row given: [X] [11] [Y] [4] [Z] // given sum relation of bricks, // next row up: [x+11] [y+11] [y+4] [z+4] // middle row: [x+y+22] [2y+15] [y+z+8] // given brick=40 and relation y=x+z, // middle row: [40] [2y+15] [3y-10] // continuing sum relation of bricks, // next row up: [2y+55] [5y+5] // top brick: [7y+60] // given top brick = 151, // 7y = 91: y = 13 // x + y = 18: x = 5 // z = y - x: z = 8 }