|
Do you suffer from unsightly chest hair? Should've gone to Pecshavers.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Hair today...gone tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
Oi Griff! Beshave yerself mate!
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
My Grandfather was 6'3" and 250lbs. He used to complain constantly about his unsightly chest hairs.
He was...
A big old chest hair whiner
(Apologies to Steve Miller and the whole band)
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended.
I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended.
Freedom doesn't mean the absence of things you don't like.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Gives wax on, wax off a whole new meaning!
Everyone has a photographic memory; some just don't have film. Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
|
Based upon Occam's Razor, I deduce you've clearly depleted you pun supply.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: Based upon Occam's Razor, I deduce you've clearly depilated[^] your pun supply
FTFY.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't had any complaints. Have you?
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that there could be a type (implemented in your favorite language has has classes, including operator overloading) that would store a number as a rational number. This type would be a list of links that would have prime factors and their exponents (e.g., in C++, the prime factor would be type "unsigned long", with the exponent being "long"). This would work because any decimal (or hexadecimal) input would be a rational number itself, and then any operations would be exact, so that, e.g., the result of (213.56 - 45.41) would be 168.15 and not 168.14999999, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
And storage of Pi would be?
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Again he beats me to it!
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
My stomach. I like pie.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
So do I! I have the last of my homemade Pork Pie for supper tonight with a salad (with ice cream and a fruit coulis to follow).
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Three significant digits should be enough for anybody.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: 640K ought to be enough for anybody
O...Kay! 
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
As a rational number? I believe 23/7 comes close, but if you want, you can find even closer rational numbers.
pi isn't a rational number.
With irrational numbers, there would be roundoff problems, although small ones. Most our everyday problems end up in rational numbers. It isn't difficult to implement a rational number type with modern OO languages.
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose that there could be some setting in this RationalNumber class that would allow for infinite computation for numbers like pi & e, if the client so desired.
Pi could use Chudnovsky algorithm. e would be pretty straightforward too.
And here's a quickie:
1833616417 / 583658233
|
|
|
|
|
That wouldn't make pi a rational number, though. It would be misleading to provide pi in a class named something like rational_number - unless you called it not pi, but pi_approximated_as_a_rational_number.
A (true) story about pi, I believe it is from around 1980 - I was told the story around 1983 by a guy who had participated in the hunt for The True pi:
At Bergen University, Norway, one professor teaching numerical methods and error propagation had his students estimate the error expected in some trancendental functions in difficult number ranges, and verify it on the University's new shining IBM 3080 mainframe. The students came back and reported significantly larger errors than their estimates suggested. The surprised professor set out to find the cause of this.
It turned out that the IBM 3080 Fortran libraries were carbon copies of the 370 libraries. Which were carbon copies of 360 libraries. The 360 got its libraries (in assembler format, of course, with floating point constants in hexadecimal format) as an adaptation of the old 7090 libraries - machines with a different instruction set and 36 bit word length (rather the 360's 32 bits). Calculating a binary representation of pi anew would have had to be set up as a separate job. They didn't do that; they just chopped 4 bits off the 7090 binary floating point mantissa for the pi value. Ignoring rounding. So the least significant bit, which should have been rounded up to a 1, remained a 0. The professor's theoretical error estimates were based on a properly rounded, not a truncated pi value.
This truncated 7090-binary pi value from the end of the 1950s was interited all the way up to the 3080 series, more than 20 years later. When discovered, and the least significant bit rounded up to a 1, the theoretical error estimates matched the observed errors more or less perfectly.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't be irrational, π would be automatically promoted to 'floating point error'.
|
|
|
|
|
Still wouldn't help electrical engineers whose work is based on e and I. That said there are a lot of good reasons to support some sort of base 10 fractional numbers to avoid the rounding errors that result from converting base 2 fractionals to base 10 fractionals.
|
|
|
|
|
Most languages do have libraries for such types. But they would not solve irrationals such as pi or sqr(2).
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
1/3 = ?
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
A perfectly rational number.
|
|
|
|
|
You may also consider a continued fraction representation which can also be calculated with, and if you allow them to be "generators" they can even represent some annoying numbers such as e and phi and irrational square roots.
But this also has various problems. For example, when subtracting "accidentally equal" numbers (ie two generators that are not the same instance and not binary equivalent, but generate the same list) it takes infinite steps to find out that there is never a difference, and this delays the generation of the "head" of the result generator infinitely long (ie there is no answer).
Working with finite CFs necessarily means that some numbers cannot be represented any more since they get truncated at some point.
By the way, floating point arithmetic is more exact than many people give it credit for. It doesn't always have to round, for example subtracting two numbers with equal sign that are within a factor of 2 of each other results in the actual difference between the two numbers (Sterbenz lemma). A large part of that perception is the great Decimal Bias of the modern world (at other times in history it would have been a Sexagesimal Bias), but there is nothing inherent about a base ten system.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
