Maple gives
> evalf(sqrt(2),503);
1.4142135623730950488016887242096980785696718753769480731766797379907324784\
62107038850387534327641572735013846230912297024924836055850737212644121\
49709993583141322266592750559275579995050115278206057147010955997160597\
02745345968620147285174186408891986095523292304843087143214508397626036\
27995251407989687253396546331808829640620615258352395054745750287759961\
72983557522033753185701135437460340849884716038689997069900481503054402\
77903164542478230684929369186215805784631115966687130130156185689872372\
353
Best,
John
Roger Hui wrote:
> I wonder why you say "the number below is not correct either".
> The following is a demonstration that <[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 2x*10x^2*n
> computes
> the square root of 2 to n decimal places:
>
> n=: 500
> s=: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 2x*10x^2*n
> $ ": s
> 501
> _50 ,@(_5&(' '&,\))\ ": s
> 14142 13562 37309 50488 01688 72420 96980 78569 67187 53769
> 48073 17667 97379 90732 47846 21070 38850 38753 43276 41572
> 73501 38462 30912 29702 49248 36055 85073 72126 44121 49709
> 99358 31413 22266 59275 05592 75579 99505 01152 78206 05714
> 70109 55997 16059 70274 53459 68620 14728 51741 86408 89198
> 60955 23292 30484 30871 43214 50839 76260 36279 95251 40798
> 96872 53396 54633 18088 29640 62061 52583 52395 05474 57502
> 87759 96172 98355 75220 33753 18570 11354 37460 34084 98847
> 16038 68999 70699 00481 50305 44027 79031 64542 47823 06849
> 29369 18621 58057 84631 11596 66871 30130 15618 56898 72372
> 3
>
> ((i.20)&{"1 ,. ' ',. (495+i.20)&{"1) ": *: ,. s+_1 0 1
> 19999999999999999999 99999567575656983330
> 19999999999999999999 99999850418369457949
> 20000000000000000000 00000133261081932568
>
> The last phrase demonstrate that s-1 is smaller than the square root,
> but s+1 is larger.
>
> Perhaps those people with access to Mathematica or Maple can compute
> the square root of 2 in those systems as a check.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Guinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Programming forum" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 4:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] More precision nightmares
>
> The answer you listed from the web is not correct. It's correct only to
> the number of digits listed. The number below is not correct either,
> but it's a lot closer.
>
> 0j200":(10x^500)%~(<[EMAIL PROTECTED]:)2x*10x^1000
> 1.4142135623730950488016887242096980785696718753769480731766797379907324784621070388503875343276415727350138462309122970249248360558
> 5073721264412149709993583141322266592750559275579995050115278206057147
> ...
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
