The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

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

Topic: No Putnam spoilers please
Replies: 15   Last Post: Dec 14, 2012 6:05 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Dr J R Stockton

Posts: 3
Registered: 12/4/12
Re: No Putnam spoilers please
Posted: Dec 8, 2012 2:13 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In sci.math message <
>, Thu, 6 Dec 2012 23:38:29, Dr J R Stockton <
uk.invalid> posted:

>In that calculation, longcalc uses only elementary arithmetic, as used
>to be taught in schools in my day. Your proof, however, is 50%
>incomprehensible to me. Though it may well be right. Longcalc found an
>error in *a* printed representation of (3^349-1)/2, which you might have
>difficulty with. Fx : checks : I think it has found another one.

Can anyone (or more) please provide here the last ten decimal digits (in
order) of ((3^349)-1)/2, freshly and independently calculated and not
copied from any other medium, and not using my LongCalc or VastCalc?

(c) John Stockton, near London. Mail ?.?
Web <> - FAQish topics, acronyms, and links.
Correct <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (RFC5536/7)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (RFC5536/7)

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.