On 2020-03-11 01:23, Todd Chester via perl6-users wrote:
On 2020-03-10 22:55, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Speaking of trivia, and off topic, did you know that
√2 caused a major religious upheaval when the result
of a 1,1,√2 triangle came out? The poor Pythagoreans:
all numbers had to be rational.
On 2020-03-10 22:55, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Speaking of trivia, and off topic, did you know that
√2 caused a major religious upheaval when the result
of a 1,1,√2 triangle came out? The poor Pythagoreans:
all numbers had to be rational. Hippasus even
got murdered for blowing the whistle on √2.
Hi Todd!
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:32:57 -0800
ToddAndMargo via perl6-users wrote:
> On 2020-02-26 12:14, Tobias Boege wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020, ToddAndMargo via perl6-users wrote:
> $ p6 'say (99/70).base-repeating();'
> (1.4 142857)
>
> means that 142857 also repeats
On 2020-02-26 12:14, Tobias Boege wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020, ToddAndMargo via perl6-users wrote:
$ p6 'say (99/70).base-repeating();'
(1.4 142857)
means that 142857 also repeats (it does not), but
that it is best it can figure out with the precision
it has?
What are you talking about? It
On 2020-02-26 12:21, William Michels via perl6-users wrote:
This code below seems to accurately return the number of "repeating
digits" (576) using Perl6 alone:
mbook: homedir$ perl6 -e 'say
This code below seems to accurately return the number of "repeating
digits" (576) using Perl6 alone:
mbook: homedir$ perl6 -e 'say
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020, ToddAndMargo via perl6-users wrote:
> > > $ p6 'say (99/70).base-repeating();'
> > > (1.4 142857)
> > >
> > > means that 142857 also repeats (it does not), but
> > > that it is best it can figure out with the precision
> > > it has?
> > >
> >
> > What are you talking about?
On 2020-02-26 11:34, Peter Scott wrote:
On 2/26/2020 11:14 AM, ToddAndMargo via perl6-users wrote:
I used gnome calculator to 20 digits:
665857/470832
1.41421356237468991063
Sorry. Not seeing any repeating patterns.
Here is NAS doing it to 1 million digits (they have too
much time on
On 2/26/2020 11:14 AM, ToddAndMargo via perl6-users wrote:
I used gnome calculator to 20 digits:
665857/470832
1.41421356237468991063
Sorry. Not seeing any repeating patterns.
Here is NAS doing it to 1 million digits (they have too
much time on their hands):
On 2020-02-26 08:20, Tobias Boege wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020, Todd Chester via perl6-users wrote:
Hi Tobias,
I am confused as to as to what you mean by numerator and
denominator.
Rational numbers can always be written as the ratio of two integers:
a/b with b non-zero. One calls a the
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020, Todd Chester via perl6-users wrote:
> Hi Tobias,
>
> I am confused as to as to what you mean by numerator and
> denominator.
>
Rational numbers can always be written as the ratio of two integers:
a/b with b non-zero. One calls a the numerator and b the denominator.
In Raku
On 2020-02-20 22:32, Tobias Boege wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020, ToddAndMargo via perl6-users wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 13:31, ToddAndMargo via perl6-users
mailto:perl6-users@perl.org>> wrote:
$ perl6 -e 'say sqrt(2).base-repeating();'
No such method 'base-repeating' for invocant
On 2020-02-23 03:07, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Hi,
just for the record - I was not talking about Raku, just about a hypothetical
language with CAS-like capabilities (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_algebra_system ) that would be able to
do it. I was just using Raku-like syntax for
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:27:27 -0800
William Michels wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 2:25 PM ToddAndMargo via perl6-users
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2020-02-19 23:21, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > > Hi Paul,
> > >
> >
> > > Well, it is not unthinkable that a
> > >
On 2020-02-22 01:58, Darren Duncan wrote:
What would the practical value of that be?
None that I know of. Did you miss the "complete
trivia question" part in my original question.
On 2020-02-20 2:22 p.m., ToddAndMargo via perl6-users wrote:
On 2020-02-20 00:41, Darren Duncan wrote:
On 2020-02-20 12:10 a.m., Tobias Boege wrote:
Granted, Todd would not have anticipated this answer if he calls
arbitrary length integers "magic powder" and the question "I have
computed this
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020, ToddAndMargo via perl6-users wrote:
> > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 13:31, ToddAndMargo via perl6-users
> > > mailto:perl6-users@perl.org>> wrote:
> > >
> > > $ perl6 -e 'say sqrt(2).base-repeating();'
> > > No such method 'base-repeating' for invocant of type 'Num'
> >
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 13:31, ToddAndMargo via perl6-users
mailto:perl6-users@perl.org>> wrote:
$ perl6 -e 'say sqrt(2).base-repeating();'
No such method 'base-repeating' for invocant of type 'Num'
in block at -e line 1
On 2020-02-20 19:07, Norman Gaywood wrote:
perl6 -e
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 13:31, ToddAndMargo via perl6-users <
perl6-users@perl.org> wrote:
> $ perl6 -e 'say sqrt(2).base-repeating();'
> No such method 'base-repeating' for invocant of type 'Num'
>in block at -e line 1
>
perl6 -e 'say sqrt(2).Rat.base-repeating();'
(1.4
On 2020-02-20 16:27, William Michels via perl6-users wrote:
mbook:~ homedir$ perl6 -e 'say (1/7).base-repeating();'
(0. 142857)
mbook:~ homedir$ perl6 -e 'say (1/7).base-repeating(10);'
(0. 142857)
mbook:~ homedir$ perl6 -e 'say (1/7).base-repeating(10).perl;'
("0.", "142857")
mbook:~ homedir$
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 2:25 PM ToddAndMargo via perl6-users
wrote:
>
> On 2020-02-19 23:21, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
>
> > Well, it is not unthinkable that a
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_algebra_system (CAS)-like system
> > will be
> > able to tell that the abstract
On 2020-02-19 23:21, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Hi Paul,
Well, it is not unthinkable that a
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_algebra_system (CAS)-like system will be
able to tell that the abstract number sqrt(2) is irrational, as well as some
derivative numbers such as 3 + sqrt(2). E.g:
Hi
On 2020-02-20 00:41, Darren Duncan wrote:
On 2020-02-20 12:10 a.m., Tobias Boege wrote:
Granted, Todd would not have anticipated this answer if he calls
arbitrary length integers "magic powder" and the question "I have
computed this Int/Num/Rat in Raku, is it rational?" does indeed
not make any
On 2020-02-20 05:53, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
However, my question to you is: when would you come across an irrational
number in a computer? How would you express it? Suppose I gave you a
function sub irrational( $x ) which returns true for an irrational
number. What would you put in for $x?
Every system that uses a fixed finite number of bits to represent numbers
has to represent them as implicit rationals...that is
unless it goes through the trouble of having a finite list of irrational
constants that it represented specially.
sqrt is not equivalent to the mathematical
Hi Todd,
This is going to be hard for an intuitive guy like you, but it can be
proven that 100% of all numbers are irrational (see
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1556670/100-of-the-real-numbers-between-0-and-1-are-irrational
).
Except the ones that a computer can do operations on,
On 2020-02-20 12:10 a.m., Tobias Boege wrote:
Granted, Todd would not have anticipated this answer if he calls
arbitrary length integers "magic powder" and the question "I have
computed this Int/Num/Rat in Raku, is it rational?" does indeed
not make any sense. But there are computer languages
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020, Paul Procacci wrote:
> >> Is there a test to see if a number is irrational
> There is no such thing as an irrational number in computing.
>
> Surely there are "close approximations", but that's the best any computer
> language can currently do.
>
It all depends on
Hi Paul,
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 00:22:34 -0500
Paul Procacci wrote:
> If you wouldn't mind, please stop referring things as being "magical".
> There's nothing magical about Raku/Perl6 other than the devs that put in
> their time to give you that perception.
> They are to be commended for their
Hello ToddAndMargo,
The answer to your question depends on how the number is represented.
If you are using a symbolic data type, meaning one that represents a number as a
logical formula akin to program source code, and the operators on that data type
work by manipulating tree expressions
On 2020-02-19 21:22, Paul Procacci wrote:
If you wouldn't mind, please stop referring things as being "magical".
That is not an insult. I am using it as term of admiration.
And I did not dream it up myself. I have had several of
the developers use both magical and Magic Larry powder
on me,
If you wouldn't mind, please stop referring things as being "magical".
There's nothing magical about Raku/Perl6 other than the devs that put in
their time to give you that perception.
They are to be commended for their time and effort.
Also, being condescending as in "he gave up" is uncalled for.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 9:58 PM ToddAndMargo via perl6-users
mailto:perl6-users@perl.org>> wrote:
Hi All,
This is a complete trivia question.
Is there a test to see if a number is irrational,
such as the square root of two?
And how does Int handle a irrational number? Is
>> Is there a test to see if a number is irrational
There is no such thing as an irrational number in computing.
Surely there are "close approximations", but that's the best any computer
language can currently do.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 9:58 PM ToddAndMargo via perl6-users <
Hi All,
This is a complete trivia question.
Is there a test to see if a number is irrational,
such as the square root of two?
And how does Int handle a irrational number? Is
there a limit to magic Larry powder?
Many thanks,
-T
35 matches
Mail list logo
