I recently whined a lot about the Egyptian multiplication puzzle which not only has no real statement, but has a very strange example that we are supposed to follow.

If the idea is â€śsimpleâ€ť to understand, the statement asks the reader to follow the example to code the algorithm. But what happens in the example and the comments donâ€™t really match my definition of an algorithm :

12 * 5

= 12 * 4 + 12 # Divide 5 by 2, the remain is 1 and 5=2Ă—2+1, thus 12*5=12*(2*2+1)=12*2*2+12=24*2+12

= 24 * 2 + 12 # Divide 2 by 2, 2=1*2+0 and 12*5=24*(1*2+0)+12=48*1+12

= 48 * 1 + 12 # Divide 1 by 2, 1=0*2+1 and 12*5=48*(0*2+1)+12=12+48

= 48 * 0 + 12 + 48 # End of the algorithm

= 60

Look at for instance, line 4 of the example. You start with 48*1 + 12. The comment explains to you how to get from here, to the next line 48*0 + 12 + 48. OK.

Now look at line 2. You start with 12*4 + 12. The comment explains how to get, not from that line, but from the PREVIOUS line, to the next line.

I thought that was ill presented and misleading, and would really benefit from rephrasing. It would be even better if the description of the algorithm would not follow an example.