On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, Philip Belben via cctalk wrote:
For me, the one that bugs me is sqr(3), which comes up in electrical
engineering a lot in 3-phase circuits.
What bugs me is seeing people type "1.73" into their calculator when they
mean sqr(3). I know other people disagree with me on this -
Good evening.
I used to post here a lot; now I mainly lurk, but this subject is one I
feel strongly about...
About every other semester, I would have a student who had been taught
"exactly 22/7"! One guy admitted that he had just never bothered to
divide it out. Once he did, he understood
For those musically uninitiated, my reference to Elgar was the
interesting discovery by an amateur musician that the "enigma" of the
"Nimrod" variation, which has been debated by musicologists for the last
century or so, is very likely pi.
Consider that by assigning a number to the degrees of the
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk On Behalf Of Jon Elson via
> cctalk
> Sent: 09 January 2019 17:43
> To: Paul Koning ; gene...@ezwind.net;
> discuss...@ezwind.net:On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>
> Subject: Re: Teaching Approximations (was Re: Mic
On 1/9/19 9:36 AM, Douglas Taylor via cctalk wrote:
> I always wondered how do people know that those computed digits of pi,
> out to millions and millions of digits, are correct?
>
> Do different algorithms or methods give the same answer?
That's basically the idea. For example, you can
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
A real problem on the IBM 360 and 370 was their floating point scheme.
I think that another serious problem was erroneous nomenclature, such as
FORTRAN using binary approximations (using a special subset of "RATIONAL
numbers"), and calling them
I first encountered it about 60 years ago, in fifth grade. Our textbook
said, "PI is about 3.1416 or 22/7." Our teacher insisted that that
sentence meant "PI is about 3.1416, or exactly 22/7." I argued it. I
pointed out that 22/7 was about 3.1429, and "why would they say 'about
3.1416'
On 01/09/2019 07:49 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
Understanding rounding errors is perhaps the most
significant part of "numerical methods", a subdivision of
computer science not as widely known as it should be. I
remember learning of the work of a scientist at DEC whose
work was all
On 1/8/2019 7:21 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 1/8/19 3:04 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
But, using a crude code of 'A' = 1, 'B' = 2, 'C' = 3, etc.
"ELGAR" appears in PI at decimal digits 7608455
I suspect that Pi, to a sufficient number of places could decode
anyone's surname.
No,
were also larger.
Dwight
From: cctalk on behalf of Paul Koning via
cctalk
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 5:49 AM
To: Tony Duell; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Teaching Approximations (was Re: Microcode, which is a no-go
> On Jan 8, 2019, at 11:58 PM, Tony Duell via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> ...
> IIRC one of the manuals for the HP15C had a chapter on 'Why this
> calculator gives the wrong answers'. It covered things like rounding
> errors.
>
> -tony
That reminds me of a nice old quote.
"An electronic pocket
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 9:31 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk
wrote:
> I first encountered it about 60 years ago, in fifth grade. Our textbook
> said, "PI is about 3.1416 or 22/7." Our teacher insisted that that
> sentence meant "PI is about 3.1416, or exactly 22/7." I argued it. I
> pointed out that
On 2019-01-08 8:50 PM, ben via cctalk wrote:
> On 1/8/2019 6:24 PM, dwight via cctalk wrote:
>> There is an algorithm to calculate any digit of PI as long as it is in
>> HEX ( or base 16 ). So far no one has been able to do this in a
>> decimal system. It would seem that out binary computers were
On 1/8/2019 6:24 PM, dwight via cctalk wrote:
There is an algorithm to calculate any digit of PI as long as it is in HEX ( or
base 16 ). So far no one has been able to do this in a decimal system. It would
seem that out binary computers were close to right in the first place.
Dwight
What is
of Chuck Guzis via
cctalk
Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 4:21 PM
To: Fred Cisin via cctalk
Subject: Re: Teaching Approximations (was Re: Microcode, which is a no-go for
On 1/8/19 3:04 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
> But, using a crude code of 'A' = 1, 'B' = 2, 'C' = 3, etc.
> "ELG
On 1/8/19 3:04 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
> But, using a crude code of 'A' = 1, 'B' = 2, 'C' = 3, etc.
> "ELGAR" appears in PI at decimal digits 7608455
I suspect that Pi, to a sufficient number of places could decode
anyone's surname.
No, I'm thinking of "Nimrod"...
--Chuck
On Tue, 8 Jan 2019, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
3.142 was good enough for Edward Elgar.
Approximations are what is needed for real world use.
How much accuracy do I need for making a patio table base for a RAMAC
[CRASHED!] platter, using a handheld circular saw, and a guess of the kerf
On 1/8/19 1:31 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
>
> I first encountered it about 60 years ago, in fifth grade. Our textbook
> said, "PI is about 3.1416 or 22/7." Our teacher insisted that that
> sentence meant "PI is about 3.1416, or exactly 22/7." I argued it. I
> pointed out that 22/7 was
Few people (but most are right here) can recite PI to enough digits to
reach the level of inaccuracy. And those who believe that PI is
exactly 22/7 are unaffected by FDIV. (YES, some schools do still teach
that!)
On Tue, 8 Jan 2019, Eric Korpela wrote:
Really? I find it hard to believe any
19 matches
Mail list logo
