vocalizes

скоро

So I wanted to correct the exercise, but I didn't manage it still.

So any progress... any progress with the exercise was practically the same exercise.

Hansen told you about a few other things, didn't he?

Yes, but I corrected two of them, but not the third one, about the binary search.

So, yeah, that can be corrected also, but I didn't do it in the lecture, so I'll have to do it again.

We can make a vote, maybe Hansen will call it, if the binary search is not okay.

Search in binary tree. Alright.

Yeah, apart from that, that was okay. I mean, there were clear marks to be found.

So in terms of the second assignment, I proposed the deal that we basically remove this third part of the second and the fourth.

Well, the portion of the first part of the third, because, I mean, partly this was wrong.

I mean, this contained a typo which was relevant for solving, and to me it makes sense,

but if you're not very comfortable with it, you can get stuck with this formulation,

and then it's not clear to fix it, etc. And it's also more demanding than this first two, I guess.

So, I mean, the short part of the search too. So for me, the point of this exercise would be to take the most simple example possible

and calculate the gravitational semantics, and put your hands on something,

but even in such a simple example, it turns out to be still demanding.

So one can do it, but I understand that it's not appreciated.

And concerning this third and the second part, I think they're not available.

So I think we'll still do this second part of the exercise today.

And concerning the exercise three, yes, also.

So the verification of the short-term law is kind of can be lengthy if you do it in all details.

So I'm also not included into the criteria for this assignment.

I mean, that's just everyone receives these points.

Any further questions about exercise assignment three?

So I tried to respond to your criticism, but I didn't make it right for some people.

So, does this slide okay?

Yes? Okay, I know your opinion, but maybe the other one?

We'll see.

So you didn't start yet. What about you?

I didn't start yet, because...

Yes, so I appreciate a lot if you start earlier and then communicate the errors to me,

which I have already fixed.

Sometimes there are still typos, but if it's done at the very last moment, then...

So I don't know any other feedback. I want you to have some feedback. Yes?

So in the first exercise assignment you agreed, being against the student argument...

Can you show it to me, because I didn't print it out?

Against the student argument that uses...

And it also doesn't fit into the user page?

Oh, you corrected it.

Yes, that was the correction from yesterday.

Yeah, I like the systematic composition to make the arguments to the unit constants.

Of course, it has to be just one type. I don't know why I skipped it.

I programmed the solution, so I know that the solution exists.

I can't get a working program, but somehow it was a copy-paste error.

And then I'm not sure in the third part what I should implement.

When I mentioned you should implement before I run the first part, is that all?

No, no, you just call the INC, and INC is supposed to do the job automatically.

When do I call the INC? Only before I request it?