Thank you for illustrating that, in the end, even with such ridiculous magnitudes as 10^300 the "adapt" algorithm is very stable numerically; at the same time neatly showing where the 400-something comes from. Nice Math.
> From: Don Guinn <[email protected]> > > In a previous reply I showed that the answer of 400 something was > correct in the sense the it only went from 1 to 1e300. The assumption > was (I think) that going to 1e300 was sufficient to get a good answer. > And the answer that was given was correct for the range from 1 to > 1e300. But the integral converges so slowly that over 500 remained > between 1e300 and _ . > > People too quickly assume that the answers from a computer must be correct. > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Sherlock, Ric wrote: > > Dieter, it would make it much easier to follow your posts if you could add > some context. i.e. who and what specifically you are replying to. > > Thanks > > > >> From: DIETER ENSSLEN > >> > >> sorry > >> as in his best answer after all that effort was 400 odd, less than half > >> the right answer > >> > >> sorry as in einstein saying > >> > >> sorry sir isaac newton > >> > >> but you were wrong > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
