Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Topic: No Putnam spoilers please
Replies: 1   Last Post: Dec 8, 2012 10:34 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View  
Ben Bacarisse

Posts: 1,915
Registered: 7/4/07
Re: No Putnam spoilers please
Posted: Dec 8, 2012 10:34 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Dr J R Stockton <reply1249@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> writes:

> In sci.math message <6wRoX+N1xSwQFw+U@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid
>>, Thu, 6 Dec 2012 23:38:29, Dr J R Stockton <reply1249@merlyn.demon.co.
> 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?

'bc' reports:

$ bc <<<"(3^349-1)/2"

so 7379284041. Haskell agrees:

Prelude> (3^349-1) `div` 2

as does Python:

>>> (3**349-1)/2

Forgive the overkill but I was not sure why you were asking.


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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2015. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.