Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Integer pairs in sum of reciprocals
Replies: 39   Last Post: Jan 22, 2001 6:02 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 the_great_nathan@my-deja.com Posts: 157 Registered: 12/12/04
Re: Integer pairs in sum of reciprocals
Posted: Jan 18, 2001 9:44 AM

In article <3a606d26.6808934@nntp.sprynet.com>,
ullrich@math.okstate.edu wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 14:05:32 GMT, George Cantor
> <the_great_nathan@my-deja.com> wrote:
>

> >In article <3a5f0e4c.51294985@nntp.sprynet.com>,
> > ullrich@math.okstate.edu wrote:

> >> >Seriously, doesn't Mathematica handle rational arithmetic
> >> >better (more concisely) than BASIC? If that's true, wouldn't
> >> >a single Mathematica statement be expected to be significantly
> >> >easier to check for potential errors than the entire BASIC
> >> >program that the Mathematica statement is equivalent to?

> >>
> >> If this were not an utterly trivial problem you'd have a point.

> >
> >Very funny, especially when you consider that my focus was on
> >those utterly trivial one-line statements, and the fact that
> >they have much less error potential. IOW, it was my point.
> >

> >> You did "finally" figure out how to do it below, in five lines
> >> of BASIC.

> >
> >No, I didn't "finally" figure anything out.

>
> Um. Why did you post incorrect statements based on
> programs that didn't quite do what they were supposed to
> do, then? You had the right one figured out all along but
> you thought it would be fun to pretend to be stupid?

Dave, if you recall, I posted those statements as part of
an explanation of how making assumptions, even when they
are logical, can sometimes lead to invalid conclusions.
So, contrary to your opinion, those statements were not
incorrect; they did what they were intended to do. That
it difficult for you to remember things (i.e. your mittens,
if they're not safety pinned to your coat sleeves), but

> > I've been using modular
> >arithmetic since I was eleven, as I'm sure you're aware. My error
> >was in making an invalid assumption. I mistakenly assumed "INT(x)"
> >stood for "round x to the nearest integer." When you consider that
> >FIX(x) returns the truncated integer part of x, and none of the
> >other keywords are used for rounding, that isn't such an implausible
> >assumption to make. In fact, YOU ASSUMED IT YOURSELF, when you
> >posted:
> >
> > "Anyway, if you replace INT with whatever BASIC uses
> > to round (I would _guess_ it was ROUND..."

>
> No, I didn't ASSUME anything there. I made a _guess_ as
> to what something might be. Just to help you out. When _I_
> write programs I _don't_ assume things about what functions
> do.

When you said "replace INT with whatever BASIC uses to round," you
implicitly made reference to some pre-existing rounding function
corresponding to one of BASIC's reserved keywords. When you deny
that we know you're lying. You're much to precise to say "BASIC
uses" if you really intended "a BASIC programmer uses." As another
example, consider primality testing. It's wrong to say "ISPRIME(x)
can be replaced with whatever BASIC uses to determine the primality
of x," because BASIC doesn't have a keyword to accomplish that task.
It's not what _BASIC_ uses, it's what a _programmer_ uses.

> >QBASIC doesn't have a rounding instruction. It uses both "FIX" and
> >"INT" for truncating. So, we are both guilty of the same crime, but
> >unlike you, nobody has to point it out to me.

>
> Uh, no. You've stated several times that you assumed that INT
> rounded to the nearest integer.

When I posted that assumption, it was not my active assumption.

> You got wrong results based on this unfounded assumption.

The assumption, although faulty, was not unfounded. It was
based on a logical likelihood.

> People pointed out that your results were wrong, and it
> wasn't until then that you decided to look up what INT
> actually did.

You're intentionally misleading people into thinking I'm an obstinate
fruitcake like yourself, who continues to defend his insane theories
about "completed infinite sets" even after countless inconsistencies
have been carefully explained in great detail.

Anyway, when I take something for granted, I don't look it up too.
Only a complete idiot would suggest looking up the things that are
taken for granted. You should look up "assumption" in a dictionary.

> >Can't you understand simple logic?
> >
> > (1) All people are individuals.
> > (2) Some people won't buy mathematica.
> > (3) Wolfram won't sell to the people
> > who won't buy mathematica.
> >
> >Therefore, Wolfram won't sell to individuals.

>
> I think I'm going to save this to use the next time
> you start saying things about logic, sets, etc.

It's nice of you to admit my example is worth saving, but I doubt
you'll learn anything from it. You see, Cantorians, by definition,
are mentally deficient people with intelligences far below the
lowest measurable range, and _incapable_ of learning.

> Oh my. Now who is it at Wolfram who told
> you they don't sell the student version to

That school must have had some pretty low standards to
allow someone like you to get passed.

Hint: grade has an "e" on the end.

> >> >> There's lots of free software out there that's capable of
> >> >> handling this problem (for someone who can't figure out
> >> >> how to do it in BASIC.)

> >> >
> >> >Dave, since BASIC can model a universal Turing Machine, why
> >> >and use it for everything?

> >>
> >> What the hell are you talking about? Where did
> >> _quote_ me saying "There's lots of free software
> >> out there that's capable of handling this problem".
> >> That's not advising you to use BASIC, that's
> >> just the opposite.
> >>
> >> You're pretending to be unable to comprehend
> >> simple English for some reason, right?

> >
> >If you weren't so sarcastic, I'de of known what was meant.

>
> Exactly how do you take "There's lots of free software
> out there that's capable of handling this problem" as
> sarcasm meaning "discard all other software"? I
> don't follow that at all.

What don't you understand, sarcasm, the rest of that quote "(for
someone who can't figure out how to do it in BASIC.)" or your
earlier comment, which started me thinking sarcastically, "The only
possible way to do rational arithmetic is by using Mathematica?"

> >> You _say_ above that you thought INT rounded to the
> >> nearest integer - I'd avoid saying that in the same post
> >> with "I'm capable" if I were you. I'm capable of understanding
> >> that functions in programming languages do what the docs
> >> say they do (when we're lucky), not what the name makes
> >> it sound like they do. I'm also capable of understanding
> >> that the BASIC INT function is not an "opcode" - your
> >> nonsense about that is what got me started on this
> >> if you want to know the truth.

> >
> >Unlike you, I'm capable of understanding that the
> >letters "INT" form a KEYWORD, and that FUNCTIONS are
> >not keywords.

>
> Teehee.
>

> >For your benefit I looked into Webster's NewWorld
> >DICTIONARY OF COMPUTER TERMS (the Completely revised &
> >updated 3rd Edition)
> >
> > keyword The primary element in a programming
> > language statement (e.g., words such as
> > LET, PRINT, and INPUT in the BASIC
> > programming language)
> >
> > function (1) A process that generates a value.
> > (2) A precoded routine.

>
> So are you saying that INT does not generate a value?
> Or are you claiming that INT is not precoded? You
> coded it yourself? I'm really curious about how
> you think the above shows INT is not a function;
> seems clear to me that it shows that INT _is_ a
> function.

It's simple Dave, _functions_ are not _keywords_. I'm
sure the concept is within your grasp. Remember, if at
first you don't succeed, try, try again.

> (Some keywords in programming languages are function
> names. You can usually tell - something you invoke
> by typing the name and then a parenthesized list
> of parameters is a function. Like INT(4.5). It's a
> built-in function, as functions named by keywords
> tend to be.)

Not every function is associated with a name. Some functions,
like the one below written in "machine code," are associated

B3A0,002A: E97D
B3A0,002C: A98F
B3A0,002E: 667856AF
B3A0,0032: 4477
B3A0,0034: 192837DA
B3A0,0038: 55
B3A0,0039: 406012
B3A0,003C: F0F0

> You're in any case assuming that the definitions in
> your little dictionary are 100% definitive. This is
> silly.

No, what's silly is the way you assumed that the definitions
contained within your tiny little brain are 100% definitive.
My (not so tiny) dictionary contains 436 pages, and unlike
you, I wouldn't be presumptuous enough to argue against the
meanings of terms contained within it. For God's sake man,
it's a bloody dictionary! What hell hole produces your 100%
definitive terms? Lemme guess: the one with your dentures.

I would like you to produce a reference (any reference) which
states that the term "function" is synonymous with "keyword."

> (Does your little dictionary say that the BASIC
> INT function is an "opcode" as you stated?) For
> example it's not true that functions in QBASIC need
> to generate a value. At least not according to
>
> http://www.learntoprogram.com/qb/funcs.html
>
> , where it says "Functions in QBASIC are defined in
> two different ways. The first definition is the
> SUB(procedure) statement[...]."
>
> Functions defined with the FUNCTION keyword
> return values, functions defined using the SUB
> keyword do not.
>
> Thinking that any dictionary is definitive is silly.
> Regardless, I'm curious: _does_ your dictionary
> give a definition of "opcode"?

Dave, how can you justify the attack on my usage of "opcode"
when, as you say, "it's silly to think that dictionaries are
definitive?" You're implying you alone are 100% definitive.

"When I use a word, it means precisely what _I_
choose it to mean, neither more, nor less."
- Humpty Dumpty.

It lists "op-code" which is short for OPERATION CODE.

OPERATION CODE - The instruction code used to specify the
operations a computer is to perform.

INSTRUCTION CODE - Same as OPERATION CODE.

OPERATION - A defined action. The action specified by a
single computer instruction or high-level
language statement. Abbreviated OP.

INSTRUCTION - A group of characters, bytes, or bits that
defines an operation to be performed by the
computer. Usually made up of an operation
code and one or more operands.

Now, self-proclaimed expert on meanings, what does "opcode"
mean to you? Are you saying keywords aren't "groups of
characters" or that they don't define "High-level language
statements?"

Just so you know, my familiarity with that term came from
a programmable calculator's instruction booklet, not the
pages of some dusty dictionary.

Finally, OH capable one, what does any of this have to do with
your inappropriate use of "function" when "keyword" was correct?

> >Do you really think I would suggest using floating-point
> >for this problem?

>
> You _were_ using floating-point for the problem. Incorrectly.
> I mean really, a lot of stuff in this post of yours sounds
> like you don't realize that people can look at your previous
> posts in the same thread. For you to say "do you think
> I would suggest using floating-point for this problem?"
> sounds just as ridiculous as if I said "do you think
> I'd be stupid enough to try to get Nathan to be rational?".

OK, in which of my previous posts do I make the suggestion
that floating-point be used for this problem? You shouldn't
have much trouble finding it since you "realize that people
can look at your previous posts in the same thread." Do you
really think people will take you seriously if after you make
such a bold claim, you can't substantiate it?

> You stated that you were as capable as I was.

No, I stated that I was as "capcable" as you.

Let me elaborate:

Anything you can do, I can do better.
I can do everything better than you.

> I'm capable of doing that problem _correctly_using nothing
> but floating-point. (When you admit you're incapable of
> that I'll show you how. Has to do with like math stuff.
> Trival math, but math.)

Dave, you're a liar. You're incapable of doing it _correctly_
in floating-point, because floating-point is not the correct
way to do this problem. Why can't you understand that?

> Let us know when you have it figured out or when
> you've decided it's too hard for you. Until then try
> whoever you're speaking to.

Oh, I see you forgot your name again. Remember, the tag with
the letters "D", "A", "V" and "E" is the one you're supposed

> Unless you're speaking to a brick or something.

Am I speaking to a brick or something?

--
I'm a little crackpot short and stout.
I've got a new handle cuz of the drought.
When I get all steamed up then I shout,
snip a poster and flame the lout.

- George (0+0=oo, for sufficiently large zeros) Cantor

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/