don't confuse with different numbering bases #3660
Conversation
|
Unrelated to this change, but I do wonder if the hashing in the document is correct e.g. |
Thanks for spotting that mistake. Fixed now. |
| peaks is 19-15=4. | ||
| After 2 more right shifts to peak size 3, we find 4 >= 3 and identify the 2nd peak, | ||
| reducing relative position to 4-3 = 1. | ||
| A final right shift gives a peak size of 1, and with 1 >= 1, we identified the 3rd and final peak. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is definitely more correct in terms of keeping consistent with a 0 based index and the code, but I have to say I did like having the diagram in place and the 'all ones on the left' to assist with the process conceptually (even thought it was 1-index based).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would keep the diagram, just my opinion as a visual thinker.
I would propose to either close this PR or modify the PR to contain a modified version of the diagram that matches the new and more correct process description by @tromp
4 participants
Minor change in MMR doc, rewriting a few paragraphs that for no good reason used 1-based positions.