On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 03:38:46PM +0000, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 09:00:47AM -0500, John Porter wrote:
> > > Uhm. NO! Remembering that $x+1 things have changed is an "added burden"
> > > over remembering that $x things have changed.
> >
> > Not as x approaches infinity.
>
> We are not changing an infinite number of things.
>
> > Please knock it off with the "Keep Perl Perl" non-argument.
>
> No.
perl -we '($b, $n) = @ARGV; printf "Proportion of stuff still working %d%%\n%d
module%s\nchance of it all working %2g%%\n", $b, $n, ($n == 1 ? "" : "s"), ($b/100) **
$n * 100' 95 4
Proportion of stuff still working 95%
4 modules
chance of it all working 81.4506%
perl -we '($b, $n) = @ARGV; printf "Proportion of stuff still working %d%%\n%d
module%s\nchance of it all working %2g%%\n", $b, $n, ($n == 1 ? "" : "s"), ($b/100) **
$n * 100' 90 4
Proportion of stuff still working 90%
4 modules
chance of it all working 65.61%
[OK, not strictly fair, as 4 modules are not independent variables - they
may all happen to fall over on the same thing]
Changes have compound effects.
Nicholas Clark
