From a7cd427fa5f086bb695dc07c1e79a29182f85d2a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Martin Goik <goik@hdm-stuttgart.de>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 20:48:57 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Cosmetics
---
Doc/Sd1/statements.xml | 9 +++++++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Doc/Sd1/statements.xml b/Doc/Sd1/statements.xml
index cef133f84..a3eb46157 100644
--- a/Doc/Sd1/statements.xml
+++ b/Doc/Sd1/statements.xml
@@ -2963,8 +2963,13 @@ import java.util.Random;
rather then creating and filtering them. Do we really need
three nested loops?</para>
- <para>Since we may sort values by size our problem can be
- stated as finding the set of all triples <inlineequation>
+ <para>Also triples having identical values but in a different
+ order like <code>(40, 399, 401)</code> and <code>(40, 401,
+ 399)</code> are equivalent. For this reason we may consider
+ only triples being ordered by size.</para>
+
+ <para>So the problem can be stated to find the set of all
+ triples <inlineequation>
<m:math display="inline">
<m:mrow>
<m:mo>(</m:mo>
--
GitLab