ok guys i won't dig myself a deeper hole here - you win.
(savored my 3 seconds of fame before steven corrected that typo tough!)
On 18 September 2014 18:21, Jameson Nash wrote:
> I'm not sure about most people, but given the first expression, I would
> have handed the paper back and told the au
I'm not sure about most people, but given the first expression, I would
have handed the paper back and told the author to clarify the ambiguity.
On Thursday, September 18, 2014, Florian Oswald
wrote:
> well, I guess most computer scientists would be surprised. writing on a
> piece of paper
>
> -
On Thursday, September 18, 2014 12:59:10 PM UTC-4, Steven G. Johnson wrote:
>
> Note that in Fortran, Python, Matlab, and Mathematica, the exponentiation
> operator has higher precedence than unary -, similar to Julia. -10^2 in
> WolframAlpha (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-10%5E2) gives
I think that was a typo for not surprised.
-- John
On Sep 18, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Steven G. Johnson wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, September 18, 2014 12:00:32 PM UTC-4, Florian Oswald wrote:
> well, I guess most computer scientists would be surprised. writing on a piece
> of paper
>
> -10^2
>
>
On Thursday, September 18, 2014 12:00:32 PM UTC-4, Florian Oswald wrote:
>
> well, I guess most computer scientists would be surprised. writing on a
> piece of paper
>
> -10^2
>
> and
>
> -(10^2)
>
> I think most people are going to say the first expression is 100 and the
> second is -100. I ta
well, I guess most computer scientists would be surprised. writing on a
piece of paper
-10^2
and
-(10^2)
I think most people are going to say the first expression is 100 and the
second is -100. I take the point that what I did was a bit stupid and Julia
is not making any mistake here.
On 18 Se
It's not like Julia is doing anything strange or uncommon here. Most people
would be really surprised if -10² meant positive 100.
Den torsdagen den 18:e september 2014 kl. 15:01:44 UTC+2 skrev Jutho:
>
> because it is not recognized/parsed as literal but as the application of a
> unary minus, wh
i see!
*julia> **:(-0.4^-2.5)*
*:(-(0.4^-2.5))*
is good to know! didnt' think of this at all so far.
On 18 September 2014 14:01, Jutho wrote:
> because it is not recognized/parsed as literal but as the application of a
> unary minus, which has lower precedence than ^
>
> I guess it is not pos
Haha, yeah, forgot about that.
On Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:00:13 AM UTC-5, Ivar Nesje wrote:
>
> Operator precedence makes them parse very different.
>
> *julia> **:(-0.4^-2.5)*
>
> *:(-(0.4^-2.5))*
>
>
> kl. 14:54:26 UTC+2 torsdag 18. september 2014 skrev Florian Oswald
> følgende:
>>
>> y
because it is not recognized/parsed as literal but as the application of a
unary minus, which has lower precedence than ^
I guess it is not possible to give binary minus a lower precedence than ^
and unary minus of higher precedence, since these are just different
methods of the same function/o
Operator precedence makes them parse very different.
*julia> **:(-0.4^-2.5)*
*:(-(0.4^-2.5))*
kl. 14:54:26 UTC+2 torsdag 18. september 2014 skrev Florian Oswald følgende:
>
> yes - not sure why -0.4 and (-0.4) are any different.
>
> On 18 September 2014 13:52, Patrick O'Leary > wrote:
>
>> See
because it parses as -(0.4^2.5)
Med venlig hilsen
Andreas Noack
2014-09-18 8:54 GMT-04:00 Florian Oswald :
> yes - not sure why -0.4 and (-0.4) are any different.
>
> On 18 September 2014 13:52, Patrick O'Leary
> wrote:
>
>> Seems like the literal -0.4^2.5 should throw the same error, though?
yes - not sure why -0.4 and (-0.4) are any different.
On 18 September 2014 13:52, Patrick O'Leary
wrote:
> Seems like the literal -0.4^2.5 should throw the same error, though?
>
>
> On Thursday, September 18, 2014 6:42:56 AM UTC-5, Tim Holy wrote:
>>
>> http://docs.julialang.org/en/latest/manual
Seems like the literal -0.4^2.5 should throw the same error, though?
On Thursday, September 18, 2014 6:42:56 AM UTC-5, Tim Holy wrote:
>
>
> http://docs.julialang.org/en/latest/manual/faq/#why-does-julia-give-a-domainerror-for-certain-seemingly-sensible-operations
>
>
> On Thursday, September 18
http://docs.julialang.org/en/latest/manual/faq/#why-does-julia-give-a-domainerror-for-certain-seemingly-sensible-operations
On Thursday, September 18, 2014 03:24:00 AM Florian Oswald wrote:
> # define a variable gamma:
>
> gamma = 1.4
> mgamma = 1.0-gamma
>
> julia> mgamma
> -0.3999
# define a variable gamma:
gamma = 1.4
mgamma = 1.0-gamma
julia> mgamma
-0.3999
# this works:
julia> -0.3999^2.5
-0.10119288512475567
# this doesn't:
julia> mgamma^2.5
ERROR: DomainError
in ^ at math.jl:252
16 matches
Mail list logo
