From 4cc0cb8ea0db1d21ab3107bc2110d69471d24acb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Camil Staps
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:24:47 +0100
Subject: Final version report practical 1

---
 Practical1/report/discussion.tex | 10 ++++++++++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Practical1/report/discussion.tex

(limited to 'Practical1/report/discussion.tex')

diff --git a/Practical1/report/discussion.tex b/Practical1/report/discussion.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e91c5d3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Practical1/report/discussion.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+\section{Discussion}
+\label{sec:discussion}
+Using Robson's paper \cite{robson} perhaps wasn't the intention of this assignment. However, it shouldn't be considered cheating either. In this report I have on several points indicated what I found out myself, and where I needed Robson's help. The optimisations Robson adds to the basic structure are all argued in this report, so the correctness theorems are still totally proven in this paper.
+
+Furthermore, I didn't actively look for a ready-made solution to the problem. I abstracted the problem to a `colouring maximising problem', then searched and asked around if things were written about it. I didn't expect to find a paper that discussed the problem in such detail.
+
+After finding a paper that does have such an optimised solution, it would only be silly (and result in a slower algorithm) to \emph{not} use it.
+
+Therefore, I do not think using Robson's paper should be considered cheating in any way.
+
-- 
cgit v1.2.3

