our ppb irreversibly tarnished
no, because in your case:
multiple functions that use a decreasing number of variables could be taken to mean that they declare less and less variables inside the functions, which is not correct
NYAAAAAAAAAAAAAA itâs NOT a CS problem (CS is SANE and likes having PRECISE terminology)
they also marked a different bonus answer we gave at that game acceptable in the released version despite rejecting us for it at the time, presumably because of a different protest. our stats for that round are unjustly lower than they should beâŚ
whereas math will give like 20 meanings to one term and invent tons of different notations for derivatives
yes but you could also call them variables. it would be ambiguous but it wouldnât be wrong
which should at least warrant a prompt (i probably wouldnât have pulled it on a prompt anyway but at least thatâs fair game)
I could also say they are THINGS
it would NOT be wrong if you assumed I meant the correct meaning
naturally this should not be accepted
this is like arguing that math shouldnât use variables in that context because it has other meanings. that doesnât affect its correctness!
marissa pointed out the one unread topic thingâŚ
1 Like
NYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 
your meaning was ambiguous, which you said! And if you want to be strict about it, wrong, assuming they worded the question like you did
vegetable knowers, thoughts on the similarity between turnips and rutabagas
NYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
sorry, this was actually a different game. my memoryâs slipping. two unrelated ppbs tarnishedâŚ
nyaaaaaaaaaa ok maybe (IDK the standards for prompting tho)
memory slipping⌠we have to do a quizbowl on benguinedâs past quiz bowls
Haskell Curry also lends his name to âcurrying,â a common tool in functional programming languages that transforms a function into a sequence of functions each with a smaller value for this property. A description is acceptable.
ANSWER: arity [accept descriptions of the number of arguments or the number of parameters or the number of inputs of a function]
nyaaaaaaaaaa
yeah I think the most reasonable (and the only fully accurate) way to interpret ânumber of variablesâ here makes that answer wrong
Haskell Curry!!! BOTH names are for functional programming things
the bonus actually doesnât mention haskell at all, if youâd believe it