Talk:Floyd's triangle

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 February 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

related triangle[edit]

1
3 5
7 9 11
13 15 17 19
21 23 25 27 29
....

(replace the nth counting number in floydls triangle with the nth positive odd integer) It's easy to prove kth row adds to k^3.--Rich Peterson23:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.33.32.40 (talk) 199.33.32.40 (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge table annotate tables[edit]

@David Eppstein: reverted my change with the message "Makes the text incorrect. It is not true that beginning programmers are often assigned the task of formatting this triangle with bold and italic as you have done." It seems obvious that the bold and italics are to highlight the lazy caterer sequence and triangular numbers, and not what the programmers implement. Strictly, they don't shade the background light grey either.

I've also merged the tables to give the full values to n = 5 and I find the second table harder to parse. If I create a separate SVG with my changes, would it be clearer?

Cheers,
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 23:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is still the case that your changes have made the text of the article incorrect. The article states "Beginning programmers are often assigned the task of writing a program to print out the table in the format shown." This makes sense only when the format shown for the table is simple text without the extra frills you have added. I might add that those frills also make it difficult to understand the triangle itself, which is very simple and should therefore be shown as very simple, without confusing decoration. And also, the notability of this triangle stems primarily from its use as a programming exercise rather than from its mathematical properties, which are very simple, so emphasizing the mathematical properties and making the programming exercise part unintelligible is a mistake. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see this is getting nowhere and will spend my time more productively where it is appreciated. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 12:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Higher dimensions[edit]

can the figures at https://twitter.com/KelvinVos2/status/1510975997948137480 be seen as higher-dimensional analogues to Floyd's triangle KlokkoVanDenBerg (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]