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: 1   Last Post: Dec 8, 2012 6:59 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View  
James Waldby

Posts: 545
Registered: 1/27/11
Re: No Putnam spoilers please
Posted: Dec 8, 2012 6:59 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 19:13:02 +0000, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> ...Thu, 6 Dec 2012 23:38:29, Dr J R Stockton ... 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?

Input ((3^349)-1)/2 to bc reports

of which the last 10 digits are 7379284041.

python, with input (pow(3,349,1000000000000000)-1)/2
reports 128887379284041, giving 7379284041 also.


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.