In the reading “hash tables and hash functions” there is a misspelling where “bucket” is misspelled “bucker”.
Thanks for this, lets flag this out!
I’ve been reviewing the materials and I happened to notice this hasn’t changed.
I just checked and Gent filed the bug back in October 2023 and it was closed as “completed” by the course staff very soon after he filed it. I just checked that reading item and it is fixed in the version I’m seeing:
I don’t know why you would be seeing an older version. Perhaps you are in an old version of the course or maybe you need to do a “refresh” in your browser or clear your browser cache and try again?
1 Like
Interesting. I just looked at the actual diagram in the picture for the first time and I’d say that the bigger bug there than the “bucker” is the fact that the indexing is 0-based. I would have said that 14 is in the 5th bucket and 17 and 97 are in the 8th bucket. Oh, well. At least it’s clear from the picture. 
Hi @paulinpaloalto Paul, thanks for all your feedback. I am wondering would there be an issue if the hash table would be 0 based indexed?
Ah yes, I had an earlier version of the course and I had it updated and now that typo is fixed.
1 Like
I have not actually been through this assignment in detail yet, so I don’t claim any deep understanding of what’s being shown there. I just assumed from the way the diagram was labelled that the buckets are just indexed like an array and you can see the index values in the diagram and they make total sense for normal python indexing. Then I noticed that the value 14 is under the bucket with index value 4, but in 0 based indexing that is actually the 5th bucket of course.
I guess there’s yet another way they could word it instead of saying “the 5th bucket”: they could say “14 is in the bucket with index 4” or “14 is in bucket 4”.
It’s clear enough what they mean from the picture, so I don’t know if it’s worth reopening your bug and adding these suggestions. What do you and Thomas think? We can take a vote and with 3 votes we’ll get a definitive answer. 
1 Like
I think this is right, it a number based indexing, I don’t think it requires a bug to be open. Its fine as it is.