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: Is it me or is it Wolfram?
Replies: 16   Last Post: May 13, 2013 4:51 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 1,306
Registered: 4/7/12
Re: Is it me or is it Wolfram?
Posted: May 10, 2013 3:24 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 10 Maj, 20:04, "Julio Di Egidio" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> "JT" <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:82f721d1-c691-47fa-8428-913e49966f62@m7g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

> >http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.499999999999999999999999999999...
> > n = -1.
> > 0.49999999999999999999999999999999999999999 = (n/2-1)/n

> >http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%3D%2810000000000000000000000000...
> > 0.49999999999999999999999999999999999999999=(100000000000000000000000000000000000000000/2-1)/
> > 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000

> > I do not understand to, can please someone explain why and how wolfram
> > get -1 for the upper calculation, it is obvious using the one below
> > what the solution is?

> > And if there was two solutions should not Wolfram give them both? What
> > is going on here, i am total newb to math calculators so tell me what
> > is going on?

> Take the equation k = (n/2-1)/n, and consider that your k is not fitting
> into a float (most probably they are using doubles, i.e. the 64-bit floats,
> but I haven't checked), so k is (apparently) rounded to 0.5.  Then,
> depending on how you transform the equation and the exact step at which you
> substitute your value for k, you either get -Infinity or -1 (exercise left
> to the reader, or I guess you could just check the step-by-step solution,
> but I haven't).
> That is how floating point works: you'd rather ideally use
> arbitrary-precision rationals, otherwise, as mentioned already in the
> thread, increase the precision of your floating point numbers.  But I do not
> think you can do any of these with Wolfram Alpha.
> Julio

No that was not the answer given in any of the primitive math
calculations i did around 97-98, but this is the answer from
mathematica and wolfram.
And just one more thing, for all the prostitutes in mathematics go
fuck yourself.

Fuck your kebab

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum 1994-2015. All Rights Reserved.